|
| Thread: Food For Thought on 9/11 | |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted August 16, 2002 02:24 AM |
|
|
Food For Thought on 9/11
Ok I'll start with a disclaimer
I have no intention of saying 9:11 never happened, or that flight 77's passengers are obviously now dead. I do not want to diminish their deaths, or the event in general. This information is something I found interesting, and like JFK before it raises some pertinent questions about what the Government of a country tells us. You be the judge of it, but like I said only really passing it onto you guys.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs2.htm
The site brings into question the pentagon attack on 9/11 and what Bush's people said happened that day. Also try the main site, which is in French, but most of the 9/11 bits are translated into other langauges.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 03:32 AM |
|
|
From my limited knowledge:
Question #1 : The pentagon was built like a fortress because it was a fortress, so it's not surprising that there was only a "little" damage done. Remember, the world trade centers collapsed because of fire damage, not because of the impact. I think it was also because the plane didn't hit directly but hit the ground first, so the impact was somewhat lessened.
Question #2 : Pretty much as above.
Question #3 : Dunno. But I suspect if there was debris visible in the picture, they'd say "how could any bits of the plane survive such a crash? It's clearly a fake!"
Question #4 : Hmmm... could it be because construction vehicles are extraordinarily heavy and they would sink and get stuck in the normal grass/turf? Ever been to a construction site? They always spread gravel and sand on the area first.
Question #5 : Gee, maybe since the wings are the weakest part of the plane they had already ripped off?
Question #6 : Well, he did say that there were plane bits seen, but since that was probably asked very shortly after the incident, he probably simply hadn't been briefed fully yet.
Question #7 : No. But there's quite a lot of water and steam and smoke obstructing my view. I also can't see the point of impact from where I sit right now staring at my computer. What's their point on this one?
I'm also not entirely clear on what their theory is... I've seen similar things to this before, though. It's always fun to believe that there's a conspiracy, though, isn't it? Personally, given the US government's skill at everything else, I somehow doubt that they could fabricate something like this...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 10:36 AM |
|
|
1. Fire damage caused by the fuel from a plane! This is not evident to the same extent here. A plane of that size would cause either huge Debris as it crumpled outside, or a major hole in the building, or a major fire like at the WTC.
3. Debris usually exist no matter what, especially if the impact was "lessened" by striking the ground first as this would break off parts of the plane
5. So where are the wings? no eye witness said that the plane was without them prior to hitting the ground (and lets face it it's something you would notice!), so presumably they would have broken near to the pentagon, and therefore appeared in subsequent photos
6. Linked to above - Any wings breaking off would be pretty obvious surely if they did so near to the building?
There is also a phtograph in a magazine I have proporting to show the "exit hole" where the alleged 757 left the building. This is just 2.8 yards wide and would have had to pass through 2 inner rings of the pentagon, not damaging them in the slightest (they were only fire damaged) and then exit
Finally why if the attack took place around 1 hour (i think) after the WTC attack is there as yet NO FOOTAGE? You would think that if the USA did not want to shoot at the plane, they would at least have footage of it as they knew it's incoming flight before it struck (at first it was believed the White House was the target prior to a last minute turn. Why don't they release it like the WTC footage?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 02:30 PM |
|
|
errm you can't hand out -qp mate!
anyway I can't help lazy people who can't be bothered can I? Listen to Bort and try you know attempt to put up a reasoned argument DM. Come on you can do that can't you?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 02:43 PM |
|
|
Maybe this is what happened?
They didnīt want the pentagon to get hit (military donīt like that) so they shot the plane down.
They donīt want ppl to know that they shot it down so they might have said that it hit the pentagon when it was 1. a booby trapped truck that hit it or 2. a fake explosion by the us gov.
OR:
The plane did hit the pentagon just like they said.
But the thing is, itīs hard to trust em =)
We dun even know if they landed on the moon or not. lol would be ruels if there was proof that noone has been on the moon. lol
then they r liers and murderers 
BUT it might all be true, everything, down to the smallest bit..
after all, the policy of the US is probably "honesty above all" and not all that "need to know basis" crap that u see in all the movies.
BUT
The president of the US looks LIKE A BABY MONKEY!!!  DAYUM THATS BE SUC!!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 03:08 PM |
|
|
|
Look, I'm from the DC area. I know people who were there. It happened. I suppose the people I know could be in on the conspiracy, but I'm really wondering exactly what would be gained by this allegedly made up plane crash. This was apparently an extraordinarily good cover up since they don't seem to be quoting any witnesses (a LOT of people work in and around the pentagon, not all of whom are military related) who say "nope, the government came and blew up a truck." Instead, you have people saying "jesus christ, I was watching the world trade center on tv and this massive plane flew by the window on a downward slant and then there was a really big crash."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 03:45 PM |
|
|
well It has been revealed recently that the USA was planning the invasion of Afghanistan since summer 2001, perhaps this is a reason for ignoring the consequences of a potential threat so they could get backing for an attack on somewhere a fair few Americans hadn't even heard of prior to 9/11? There are after all a fair number of missles in the USA's Armoury that look similar to a small plane (small wings, tail etc)
Bort i'll try and get another link of some people who said they were unsure about the attack. ABC did though first quote eye witnesses as it being a truck bomb, only for the US government to deny it later.
The first few lines of Bjorn's post do have some sense to them as a potential reason. Remeber that after JFK many people were in flat denial that there was a conspiracy, and that the warren report was true, but events since have cast considerable doubt on the report.
I'm sorry if it causes any of you any trouble, but I found it interesting. Governments lie about so much so to believe all they say without question or listening to alternatives is madness. That was the point I was making, always look to the alternative opinion as you may sometimes find some truth there also.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 07:22 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 16 Aug 2002
|
Quote:
well It has been revealed recently that the USA was planning the invasion of Afghanistan since summer 2001, perhaps this is a reason for ignoring the consequences of a potential threat so they could get backing for an attack on somewhere a fair few Americans hadn't even heard of prior to 9/11? There are after all a fair number of missles in the USA's Armoury that look similar to a small plane (small wings, tail etc)
The "drum up support for a war" argument only works if you also argue that the world trade center was a fake. After all, the "other" two planes (Washington and Pennsylvania) are generally forgotten. Now I don't hear very many claims that the world trade center is still there or was never hit by planes. Trust me, the world trade center pissed people off enough, there was no need for the government to make up another plane crash. I don't doubt that there are certain aspects of the whole situation which we haven't been told, but the central aspect of a plane crash hitting the pentagon happened. If you really want a conspiracy theory, try claiming that the israelis were really behind it. Or that the US government crashed the plane themselves. Or aliens, but don't try claiming that a plane never hit the pentagon.
It always amazes me the way people think that the government can fabricate things like this given their immense success at everything else...
Edit : as to the single witness from the day of the event, things were really confused at that point - at one point there were also reports that the State Department had been hit and so on and so forth. My point is that there were a large number of people there. That's a whole lot of people to get into the conspiracy or silence. I suppose it's technically possible, but seems pretty bloody unlikely.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 08:02 PM |
|
|
Hudson.. alternative thinking donīt work when thereīs Americans involved..
it ALWAYS happened the way they said EXACTLY the way they said it and if you even QUESTION it you are just stupid and against a free world and stuff like that.
So thatīs basically what youīre going to hear if you want to reason about this.. and thatīs a good enough reason to only do it on the net and not IRL where it can really matter.
On the other hand OF COURSE we shouldnīt talk about things like these right now. Maybe in a few years but right now we should let em be.. :/
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 16, 2002 11:05 PM |
|
|
no bort you misunderstand me I meant that the US government could have had prior knowledge of some sort of attack, but ignored it in favour of a reason for war. The point is that the plane that they said hit is unlikely to have been what actually hit. Sure something blew it up, but what as the 757 theory has some nagging questions around it. No-ones suggesting that the whole pop of Washington is in on it, but those who saw it and were unsure of it's type or size would have later heard the explanation and assumed it was correct. Like I said some guided missiles look astoundingly similar to planes, especially to an untrained eye. Many people after JFK was killed and were in the area later accepted the theory put forward by Warren, despite the huge gaping holes in the "official" account.
Anyways like I keep saying I don't know either way, I just wanted opinions on it and to show people alternative options when the official reason is shall we say slightly confusing?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted August 17, 2002 12:55 AM |
|
|
| |
|
|
