Anyone seen this
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
This is one of quite a few presentations that cast doubt.
I do not wish to be labelled ''tin foil'' but I have to confess there are so far some things that do not add up comfortably. I have viewed many ''offerings''.
Beyond that I will not say much more - often anyone who does not agree with what was put out gets the ''conspiracy theorist'' label. I prefer to just say sometimes, I reserve judgement - it is so easy to put different spins on stuff, clever editing, selective reporting etc - but that works both ways.
This is all very contentious material - and so I hope the thread will not go sour. Views are good - flames are not.
I do not wish to be labelled ''tin foil'' but I have to confess there are so far some things that do not add up comfortably. I have viewed many ''offerings''.
Beyond that I will not say much more - often anyone who does not agree with what was put out gets the ''conspiracy theorist'' label. I prefer to just say sometimes, I reserve judgement - it is so easy to put different spins on stuff, clever editing, selective reporting etc - but that works both ways.
This is all very contentious material - and so I hope the thread will not go sour. Views are good - flames are not.
Joined
·
25,127 Posts
I've heard various theories. I'm reserving judgement until the facts are more clearly presented.
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
Bruce - ''interesting questions'' - you betcha!
And I can easily add some aspects I have considered carefully which do bother me. However this is a subject which has, a good many times on board discussions, deteriorated into quite a slanging match!
So - I do not say too much - and still actually hope for more info to surface over time. LIke so many things - in fact like how we try and judge shooting scenarios - chances are we are never privvy to all the facts needed for a definitive judgement. Always seem to be bits missing or too unclear to be definitive.
And I can easily add some aspects I have considered carefully which do bother me. However this is a subject which has, a good many times on board discussions, deteriorated into quite a slanging match!
So - I do not say too much - and still actually hope for more info to surface over time. LIke so many things - in fact like how we try and judge shooting scenarios - chances are we are never privvy to all the facts needed for a definitive judgement. Always seem to be bits missing or too unclear to be definitive.
Joined
·
4,965 Posts
Sigh.
There were eyewitnesses to the aircraft striking the pentagon, and no doubt whatsoever that it was an airliner.
Parts of the airliner were found in the building.
On Sept. 11, I was on duty at the fire station where the Maryland USAR task force is housed - they responded to the pentagon. Personnel from the task force described working among remains of the aircraft, both mechanical and human.
There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon that morning.
Perhaps after viewing the OP's link, check this one out: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Matt
There were eyewitnesses to the aircraft striking the pentagon, and no doubt whatsoever that it was an airliner.
Parts of the airliner were found in the building.
On Sept. 11, I was on duty at the fire station where the Maryland USAR task force is housed - they responded to the pentagon. Personnel from the task force described working among remains of the aircraft, both mechanical and human.
There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon that morning.
Perhaps after viewing the OP's link, check this one out: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Matt
That had some interesting comments from various people inside the pentagon, as well as some interesting photos.MattLarson said:
I am still not convinced though, as a 757 commercial airliner would leave more debrie around than what you are seeing. We should not turn this into a arguement where some say this is what happened, just accept it, I want more people to post info like Matt did so we can better draw our conclusions.
QK, you know for sure cause you were there right?
Joined
·
144,928 Posts
No but, I know somebody that was there but, I guess they flooded me with disinformation. :buttkick:
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory on this.
It was not a plane that hit the Pentagon but it was rather a missile...& somehow the FAKE STORY about the Hi~Jacked terrorist flown plane slamming into the Pentagon is supposed to be BETTER than the REAL STORY of the missile?
Or..."The Government" (our military) blew the hole into the Pentagon to make 9/11 seem worse than it really was because two terrorist flown jets slamming into the Twin Towers (in an attack against the United States) wasn't a serious enough attack on the United States...in itself?
What's the logic behind the conspiracy?
Somebody....Please tell me that.
So...Prez Bush decided that the the Twin Towers attack was not quite enough of a threat to the United States to get us into a war with Iraq so he ordered the military to launch a Trident missile at The Pentagon filled with people because THAT would really pi$$ the American people off.
Tell me what I'm missing here? Give me a clue!
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory on this.
It was not a plane that hit the Pentagon but it was rather a missile...& somehow the FAKE STORY about the Hi~Jacked terrorist flown plane slamming into the Pentagon is supposed to be BETTER than the REAL STORY of the missile?
Or..."The Government" (our military) blew the hole into the Pentagon to make 9/11 seem worse than it really was because two terrorist flown jets slamming into the Twin Towers (in an attack against the United States) wasn't a serious enough attack on the United States...in itself?
What's the logic behind the conspiracy?
Somebody....Please tell me that.
So...Prez Bush decided that the the Twin Towers attack was not quite enough of a threat to the United States to get us into a war with Iraq so he ordered the military to launch a Trident missile at The Pentagon filled with people because THAT would really pi$$ the American people off.
Tell me what I'm missing here? Give me a clue!
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
Bruce: first of all, grow a beard again.. you look horrible all shaved.
Second, we must take in consideration the building itself plus jet fuel and the fact we are talking aluminun, a material chose for its lightnes and not its strenght. Jet fuel fires can reach, on their own and without any more combustibles a temperature of almost 1500°F. Aluminun melts at 1220 °F and if you add to it that aluminun can become part of the fire itself, increase its temperature and add the fact that the Pentagon itself acted as an oven, you are not gonna have a lot of big parts to see.
But that is MHO
Second, we must take in consideration the building itself plus jet fuel and the fact we are talking aluminun, a material chose for its lightnes and not its strenght. Jet fuel fires can reach, on their own and without any more combustibles a temperature of almost 1500°F. Aluminun melts at 1220 °F and if you add to it that aluminun can become part of the fire itself, increase its temperature and add the fact that the Pentagon itself acted as an oven, you are not gonna have a lot of big parts to see.
But that is MHO
I wasn't tring to be a smarta$$ I just remember reading somewhere that you were either there or like you said knew someone who was.QKShooter said:
I don't wanna believe the latter of what ya said, but maybe somehow someone was "sent" to take out the plane before it did serious damage lite the 2 at the WTC, and things went horribly wrong.
I am just looking for more info on this subject so I can make things make "sence" in my own head.
We never landed on the moon and the earth is flat. 
Seems we are too quick to forget the people who were interviewed on TV that day, who were driving by and actually saw the 757 flying low over the Interstate and into the Pentagon.
We also must have forgotten the cell phone conversations that took place between some of the passengers and their loved ones, including one "news celeb."
Never mind what the government says, we all know they are the "real enemy."
No one recalls all the phony stories the circulated the Internet about all the "strange" things supposedly found after the Twin Towers went down? You can find a number of them at your favorite urban legends-type web site.
So, anyone really think the US Government brought down the World Trade Center and blamed the poor, hapless, followers of Bin Laden?
We see a video put up on a web site, filled with adds for conspiracy theory web sites and books. Follow some of the links, you get the "real truth" on subjects listed like:
Zionist Threatening Iran
Occupied Palestine
Occupied Iraq
Life Under the Bush Reich
You don't think these "bringers of the TRUTH" might have an agenda, do you?
Gleaned from that web site's forum, "From a historical point of view, the only reality is that of conspiracy."
For entertainment, it is interesting. For an understanding of life on this planet, it is laughable.
One thing to keep in mind when searching for the truth on the misinformation superhighway, is that while looking at the message, you have to look at the messenger, as well.
So, if you are in search of a distraction from reality, have a ball! But if you find yourself buying into all this, well. . . line your ball cap with tinfoil.
mm
Seems we are too quick to forget the people who were interviewed on TV that day, who were driving by and actually saw the 757 flying low over the Interstate and into the Pentagon.
We also must have forgotten the cell phone conversations that took place between some of the passengers and their loved ones, including one "news celeb."
Never mind what the government says, we all know they are the "real enemy."
No one recalls all the phony stories the circulated the Internet about all the "strange" things supposedly found after the Twin Towers went down? You can find a number of them at your favorite urban legends-type web site.
So, anyone really think the US Government brought down the World Trade Center and blamed the poor, hapless, followers of Bin Laden?
We see a video put up on a web site, filled with adds for conspiracy theory web sites and books. Follow some of the links, you get the "real truth" on subjects listed like:
Zionist Threatening Iran
Occupied Palestine
Occupied Iraq
Life Under the Bush Reich
You don't think these "bringers of the TRUTH" might have an agenda, do you?
Gleaned from that web site's forum, "From a historical point of view, the only reality is that of conspiracy."
For entertainment, it is interesting. For an understanding of life on this planet, it is laughable.
One thing to keep in mind when searching for the truth on the misinformation superhighway, is that while looking at the message, you have to look at the messenger, as well.
So, if you are in search of a distraction from reality, have a ball! But if you find yourself buying into all this, well. . . line your ball cap with tinfoil.
mm
Joined
·
262 Posts
madmike - well said.
+1
+1
Joined
·
25,481 Posts
Very valid point Mike. Often/frequently overlooked - agendas!
My only real interest is in some apparent inconsistencies - nothing conspiratorial - just odd things that don't always seem to add up from a scientific POV. I don't have a tin foil hat!
Joined
·
262 Posts
That's it - pass the tinfoil. I'm making a hat and a jockstrap.:gah:madmike said:
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
I'm reminded of the video of an F-4 Phantom running down a track in afterburner, and into a concrete block. There was nothing left but the concrete block. The impact blew a relatively small hole of atomized concrete out the other side, and some pieces of the engines made it through, but nothing of the lighter material survived the impact. The wings cut into the concrete before they disintegrated.
A 757 up close and personal at full throttle a few feet off the ground has a very different sound from one cruising at altitude. A plane going that fast, that close, gives very little time for warning, and is hard to see. Once it was close to the ground, there was very little time for witnesses to register what they were seeing. I have no doubt it would seem smaller than it was.
I am also reminded of video of a Boeing 707 being crashed on autopilot during a test of a fire-retardant fuel additive. The tanks were fully-loaded and the fireball was impressive, but not as massive as one might expect for the amount of fuel involved.
A bullet, traveling through multiple layers of paper or board, will only make a small hole or dent in the last layer. A plane is basically a very thin aluminum tube, mostly full of air. Wouldn't the shape of the hole in the last wall the plane penetrated have as much to do with the material and construction, as it would the plane?
I was not there, but I have spoken with a number of personnel who were. I also participated in a CTR review of the crash and response. From the observations I've heard, and facts and data I've reviewed, I have no reason to doubt that a 757 impacted that building. Like others, I have to wonder why finding an alternative explanation is so much more appealing.
A 757 up close and personal at full throttle a few feet off the ground has a very different sound from one cruising at altitude. A plane going that fast, that close, gives very little time for warning, and is hard to see. Once it was close to the ground, there was very little time for witnesses to register what they were seeing. I have no doubt it would seem smaller than it was.
I am also reminded of video of a Boeing 707 being crashed on autopilot during a test of a fire-retardant fuel additive. The tanks were fully-loaded and the fireball was impressive, but not as massive as one might expect for the amount of fuel involved.
A bullet, traveling through multiple layers of paper or board, will only make a small hole or dent in the last layer. A plane is basically a very thin aluminum tube, mostly full of air. Wouldn't the shape of the hole in the last wall the plane penetrated have as much to do with the material and construction, as it would the plane?
I was not there, but I have spoken with a number of personnel who were. I also participated in a CTR review of the crash and response. From the observations I've heard, and facts and data I've reviewed, I have no reason to doubt that a 757 impacted that building. Like others, I have to wonder why finding an alternative explanation is so much more appealing.
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Join the discussion
