News:

Anybody interested in joining a behind the scenes critique group, please PM Ed :smiley:

Main Menu

Good 9/11 conspiracy theories again

Started by doolols, May 16, 2006, 06:54:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

doolols

On the telly just now, they had the only video footage in existance of the Boeing 757 flying into The Pentagon on 9/11. Of course, as soon as it had finished, I typed "flight 77" into Google, and found some fantastic (in all senses of the word) information on this CT.

http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

Now we all know Conspiracy Theorists have their own agendas, and can prove that 2 and 2 make 5, but there's some intriguing photographic 'evidence' that questions what it was that hit the Pentagon on that day. Particularly interesting is the fact there is very little real wreckage of the plane, and the damage to the building doesn't match that of a big airliner hitting it.

As with anything I don't understand, I have an open mind, but there's a point at which there is so much evidence, you have to question the official story. Mind you, they're still arguing over the shooting of Kennedy and the moon landings.  ::)
My name is Gerald, and I am a writer (practicing for AA - Authors Anonymous)

Ed

So what are they saying did hit the Pentagon and if it wasn't the airliner where did it go? :scratch:

Picture buying a house in the region, going to park your car in the garage for the first time, only to find it filled with a Boeing 747 and a couple hundred passengers.  Not to put a dampers on things, because I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but there are some pretty big logic holes in this one, from where I'm sitting :afro:
Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something.  The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression. [Sir John Harvey-Jones]

Walker

As you know, I love conspiracy theories. I don't always believe them-- seldom in fact-- but love to hear them. Nothing about the report of what hit the Pentagon matches what they said. Nothing. The supposed 'engine' they found on site (only one-- what happened to the other one?) wasn't even the same size as the engines from a 757. Not even close. It did match the size of engine on certain kinds of missiles, however. There hasn't been a wreckage in history where there was no recoverable part of a plane that could identify it, not even in the ocean. The landing gear is always part of the recovery. Partly because they get ripped off and deposited on the ground before the wreckage, but even if they weren't depolyed, they still would have been recovered.
In this case it seems clear, even to my wife who hates conspiracy stuff, that they're lying. Everything points to it being a missile. If they are lying, what are the implications of that?
One more thing. Where was this evidence several years ago when everyone was asking what was going on? Did it really take them 4 years to airbrush the nose of a 757 into the picture? What a can of worms this is going to be.
I love it!
"Lord, here comes the flood, we will say goodbye to flesh and blood. If, again, the seas are silent in any still alive, it'll be those who gave their island to survive. Drink up, dreamers, you're running dry."
Peter Gabriel.

Ed

Found another link - http://www.loosechange911.com/

So (I haven't read any of this stuff yet) who are they saying fired the missile, if it was a missile that hit the Pentagon?  And why would they bother to lie about it? :scratch:
Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something.  The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression. [Sir John Harvey-Jones]

Walker

I have that video on my hard-drive, Blunt, and it's a pretty good one, too.
My hybrid theory of what may have happened here falls only slightly short of stark raving mad. If I allow my line of thinking to fall on the side that asserts there really were terrorists involved-- as opposed to a domestic ploy-- then I tend to think that a stolen Tomohawk missile would account for this. It seems logical that they would rather reveal a hijakcing of a passenger jet than the theft of an extremely dangerous missile. As far as who fired it goes, that's something that even a crazyman like me can't comment on.

Speaking of stolen weapons, it's funny we never hear about the 19 stolen suitcase-nukes( afew years back), from Russia I believe. If anyone has anyting on that, please post it.
"Lord, here comes the flood, we will say goodbye to flesh and blood. If, again, the seas are silent in any still alive, it'll be those who gave their island to survive. Drink up, dreamers, you're running dry."
Peter Gabriel.

SharonBell

"Be good and you'll be lonesome." Mark Twain

www.sharonbuchbinder.com

Ed

I remember the suitcase nukes story, but I thought it was only 5 (only ::) is there any such thing as 'only', where nuclear weapons are concerned?).  It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA had them, or even the British government.  I know they were supposed to have teams of MI5 agents out buying nuclear fuels on the black market, rather than allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists.

Tomohawk missiles, huh?  That's feasible, I suppose.  There seem to be a lot of disgruntled ex servicemen around with the necessary know-how to launch one.
Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something.  The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression. [Sir John Harvey-Jones]

Neuromancer

#7
I am a history/discovery channel buff...

Saw this and remember the conspiracy theories i saw about said although i did nt chec kthose links yet...

One of the things i saw LONG before 9/11 was ... a jet (on rails) flown into a reinforced concrete structure.

You know what happened?


the largest piece of the plane they found was no more then 3' large, and it was an engine... so assumingthose links are the same... well duh

But consider something else....

We all know about anti missle technology... and we know that moscow and washington were both protected...  SO

Having been in the military i do know a little about anti air technology and we have a few methods... anthing from SMs to CIWS, the latter would wipe out an aircraft withing a mile... so only wreckage would hit the building... and of course we wouldnt advertise that fact..


EDIT:   I read some of the links... they all sound legitimate... but then again, what doesnt when presented as news?   I can write up a news story that sounds genuine also with made up facts just like any glory hound would produce...  however liek one of the sites even ADMITS on there site (as of 2005... more then 3 years after their "news" report that there was no evidence, admits there is evidence of a plane crashing... oops...

Do i still believe that the plane could have been shot down?  Sure i do.. does it matter to me whether it crashed into the pentagon or was shot down before hitting the pentagon?  nope.

The basic fact remains... we have been at war with the Arabs for over 50 years.. ever since Britain claimed the land of palestine for the jews, the arabs have hated white people.  Racist?  Call it want you want, the truth is the truth.   (It could also be said that so many people in the world hate the jews that maybe we should investigate that... but, we are a freedom of religion country as is most of europe. 

Its great living in a country that can say anything, but must admit that it also sucks... I just havent seen on the news the factthat the 2 main countries oppsed to the iraq war 2 were france and russia  and yet they made over 50 billion dollars on violating the trade embargo,  thats not a  good conspiracy theory i guess, cuz it doesnt involve a texan president

oh well

hey maybe if tony blair was cockney it would be his fault?

JMHO anyway :)

Yes I am a writer, but my critics call me a typist.--Salem's Lot

Ed

Can't be much of a protection system if there was still enough of the plane left to hit the building and flatten a huge chunk of it :grin:  Assuming the plane was low on an approach to its target, if it was hit by a missile a mile away, causing it to explode, the wreckage should have fallen to earth almost immediately I'd have thought.  Course, there could have been a malfunction of some sort, and I don't think we'll ever know the full truth, but it's interesting to speculate.

As for the arabs having been at war with the west since the creation of the Jewish state - it's been a while longer than that.  It's about 900 years since Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were fighting over Jerusalem and Christians were doing hog-roasts with captured Saracen women and children, to provoke the men into attacking.  Not a very Christian thing to do, if you ask me, but there you go :scratch:  Anyhoo, I don't think the middle east problems will be sorted in our lifetimes.
Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something.  The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression. [Sir John Harvey-Jones]

Neuromancer

Religion has always been the provokation for war no doubt htere... as for the "west"  with the US it has only been 50 years or so.  English french and spanish has been 900 years... but now its ithe americans they hate more then any other... Britain gave palestine to the jews.. but it is the Americans that gave them the weapons to hold it. 

It does not matter that France and Russia proffitted more from the Iraqi embargo then anyone else (oh and it is the british and the americans that are blamed for stealing resources, check it) but htey actually support the deposed dictator.  I hear the REAL arguments, not the fake ones, and i do ask the same questions.  However usually i know the answer...

Why Iraq and not somalia?  Or whatever 3rd world country is in dire need?

We learned from vietnam.   Firstly, we are not going to and liberate a country that someone else spent 200 years trying to save.. but secondly... Iraq has the chance of standing on its own 2 feet..  in 10 years it can be a self sufficient nation that abhors autocracy (is that the word???).  But has the resources to not need assistance from the US (and Britain) anymore. 

As far as the UN goes... I seem to recall hearing (though I can not find it now, mainly cuz I am not sure of the names..) that countries like Iraq,Syria nad Libya were the countries responsible for governing WMD, Human Rights and something else contradictory...) 

Dammit I wish I rememberd I hate you beer!!!

Yes I am a writer, but my critics call me a typist.--Salem's Lot