- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
well thats certainly a possibillity
well thats certainly a possibillity
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
I suspect 9/11 conspiracists would say that the need for a New Pearl Harbour, wasn't so much for an excuse to go to war, as to create the right environment in which to set up a State of Emergency, whereby the Public's Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties could be suspended.tonyblair11 said:
Just keeping this Fortean Conspiracy discussion on topic.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
you would suspect correct
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
Well seeing as no one wants to answer my spools problem.
I'll answer it myself.
The reason the spools are intact is due to the actual distance the spools are from the front of the pentagon.
In the photos it looks close too but in actual fact the spools are quite away away giving plenty of space for the crash to not affect them.
I'll answer it myself.
The reason the spools are intact is due to the actual distance the spools are from the front of the pentagon.
In the photos it looks close too but in actual fact the spools are quite away away giving plenty of space for the crash to not affect them.
austen27 said:
Try telling the 180 000 dead Iraqis that you find it hard to believe people couldn't be that evil, they were just unlucky to be born iraqi in this time. Or the 2300 dead US troops or the 19000 injured US troops, there are very nastie folk about smack dealers, violent pimps, and some manage to get into power like Nero or Hitler and maybe Bush, Cheny, I'm not saying it's true but it could be. Just to be clear I love most US citizens and the country they come from, look how hard it is to goad them to war and how generous they are to the enemy when they defeat them.
The Shayler vid is v good Techy
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
nope I was debunking myself
bored you see
bored you see
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
Yes Techy but what about the lack of identifiable plane parts like the tail and wings etc.
they would have been seen on the lawn if it had been a 757
they would have been seen on the lawn if it had been a 757
A
Anonymous
Guest
I for one do not attack Americans (or North Americans as the case may geographically be )
I happen to think that most people on these 9/11 CT threads have been referring to Neo-Cons who have been alleged to have duped Sheepies or Sheeples.
I also hold to the opinion that it is likely that most in the US do not vote - same as here in the UK - so that means we really do not have any clear idea of how many people actually support Bush and his 'Hawks'.
The other thing is - I thought Blair and his mob were squeaky clean - but they might well not be. That's not to say much about the Tories who have just had some mud slung at them recently about taking a £3m loan.
Politics is complicated me thinks.
)I happen to think that most people on these 9/11 CT threads have been referring to Neo-Cons who have been alleged to have duped Sheepies or Sheeples.
I also hold to the opinion that it is likely that most in the US do not vote - same as here in the UK - so that means we really do not have any clear idea of how many people actually support Bush and his 'Hawks'.
The other thing is - I thought Blair and his mob were squeaky clean - but they might well not be. That's not to say much about the Tories who have just had some mud slung at them recently about taking a £3m loan.
Politics is complicated me thinks.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
talking of sheeple
I think its more of an unwillingness to discuss conspiracy's generally in some folk.
Its like not good enough for them to spend time thinking about :shock:
ah well
by the way
the bits of the 757 were turned into confetti and brushed away after the impact.
The damage to the internal support columns was caused by the two engines on an erratic path thro the pentagon.
The small exit hole was caused by the compression of the titanium and steel subframe on the plane compressing in the impact and exiting via a smaller hole than would be expected.
The engine parts were from a version of the engine that was in that release of fittings on that particular version of the 757.
Most 757 had a different engine but some did indeed have engines with the bits they found.
The angle of approach never actually hit the grass hence no gauge marks.
This also ties into the compression of the sub frame of the plane and the boucing effect damage inside the building.
The CCTV footage is still a mystery mind.
The fuel was not seen to explode in the right way again becouse of the impact angle as much of the fuel was ejected inside the building you can see this by the amount of black charring inside the three outer rings internal photographs.
The dead bodies were hidden from the media.
which is s sensible thing after the people jumping from WTC1 and 2
also most of the dead were inside the pentagon and not blown out into the open on impact.
The sucking motion of the plane going thro the first reinforced wall created a vaccum that kept the bodies traveling forwards into the carnage inside.
Think of anything else ?
It was a 757 all above board
I think its more of an unwillingness to discuss conspiracy's generally in some folk.
Its like not good enough for them to spend time thinking about :shock:
ah well
by the way
the bits of the 757 were turned into confetti and brushed away after the impact.
The damage to the internal support columns was caused by the two engines on an erratic path thro the pentagon.
The small exit hole was caused by the compression of the titanium and steel subframe on the plane compressing in the impact and exiting via a smaller hole than would be expected.
The engine parts were from a version of the engine that was in that release of fittings on that particular version of the 757.
Most 757 had a different engine but some did indeed have engines with the bits they found.
The angle of approach never actually hit the grass hence no gauge marks.
This also ties into the compression of the sub frame of the plane and the boucing effect damage inside the building.
The CCTV footage is still a mystery mind.
The fuel was not seen to explode in the right way again becouse of the impact angle as much of the fuel was ejected inside the building you can see this by the amount of black charring inside the three outer rings internal photographs.
The dead bodies were hidden from the media.
which is s sensible thing after the people jumping from WTC1 and 2
also most of the dead were inside the pentagon and not blown out into the open on impact.
The sucking motion of the plane going thro the first reinforced wall created a vaccum that kept the bodies traveling forwards into the carnage inside.
Think of anything else ?
It was a 757 all above board
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2005
- Messages
- 87
i distinctly remember a news report describing what happened to the plane that ended up in the middle of nowhere. It was only mentioned in one report I heard. The words were that a jet fighters had been scrambled to the plane's side and the plane was 'brought down' because the plane failed to respond rto repeated attempts to contact the pilots.
I think it was probably deemed more appropriate for the public to hear that the plane was seen to accidentally crash with the passengers trying to take the plane over than it being shot down by the USAF.
I think it was probably deemed more appropriate for the public to hear that the plane was seen to accidentally crash with the passengers trying to take the plane over than it being shot down by the USAF.
A
Anonymous
Guest
witchflame wrote;
Yeah - that does sound more likely than anything else I've read actually.
Yeah - that does sound more likely than anything else I've read actually.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
Thinking about and discussing is fine, techy - I quite enjoy it (and have changed my mind more than once as a result of discussions on here.) Healthy mistrust of TPTB is an essential trait, especially within Fortean thinking.techybloke666 said:
No, I think the line needs to be drawn at obsessing about conspiracies - it's a potentially very, very slippery slope. Not a danger from shady government agencies stifling "The Truth" so much as the very real risk of developing abject paranoia - there have been a few on here over the years testament to that (and I'm not including you here, techy - however, it pays to remember that more often than not a cigar-shaped object is just a cigar.) Perhaps it's time to reanimate the hugely stimulating Conspiracy Theories: The Basics to discuss this further.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
I'm not sure if that is advice for CT's
your honest opinion
a dig at me
or a suggestion I go and see a psychiatrist
When information is being witheld in these alledged conspiracies people will always come up with CT's.
Its always happened
some times an element of truth does eventually come thro but it usually takes years, due to the information finally being released.
I am just asking questions STU , to be honest I would rather play golf 24/7 and never even log on the net at all.
Unfortunatly it goes dark at night and we have bad winters.
And to be honest again I don't really care if no one gives a damn on here at the end of the day neither.
For instance
The debunking sites all say that the firemens testimony's were taken out of context and only parts were used to bolster the CT's pint of view.
Classic debunking
that is just not true
I saw the the firemens documentary program that was made a couple of weeks after 911 and they were not edited at that time due to it being nothing to do with CT's.
They firemen stated in the video of the foyer encounter that they had indeed heard explosions and the front windows had blown out.
Months later debunkers muddy the water, at least as bad as the CT's at the end of the day.
for the record
I think thw WTC was done by Arabs on planes
I think a 757 did hit the Pentagon
But I also think the US government had an inkling about the whole affair beforehand too.
anyway enough rambling
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
Well, I did explicitly say:techybloke666 said:
So no, it wasn't directed at you in any way whatsoever. It was in response to your statement,with which I agree, that there are those who question nothing: I was making an additional, general observation on the nature of some CTs, who become effectively addicted to the notion that everything's a conspiracy, and that if you're that way inclined it can quickly segue into paranoia.
To reiterate, personally, I'm happy to consider and discuss theories. I'm even willing to change my opinion, given sufficient persuasive argument and evidence. There will always be a hardcore of both skeptics and CTs however for whom nothing will ever constitute proof that is contrary to their opinion. What's conclusive evidence to one will always be proof of delusion to the other - never the twain shall meet.
I think we all know the victims of justice department persecution , the FBI bug my breakfast cereal types that stuneville could have been referring. Questioning 911, by the very fact of how wide spread it is, is well within the parameters of normal human behavior. 
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
Theres a differnece to questioning the questions Jerry
and
Just repeating the official line all the time.
I think you fall firmly in the latter.
For instance
prove to me that the central core of WTC7 was right to collapse in its own foot print as the building collapsed downward please.
and I know before you answer that you will not go anywhere near the actual answering of my question, you will debunk like you always do.
Heckler
The unspeakable mass
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2004
- Messages
- 5,232
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
NO actually the reports don't explain it satisfactorily hence Nist spending millions on an independant outsourced study which will hopefully conclude in November 06.
If it was sorted do you think Nist would have to outsource the task in the light of Fema's balls up Mate ?
I have looked at many collapse photographs over the last few weeks and all of them with the exception of WTC7 have left the main core standing.
WTC7 main core was shredded.
I don't really expect anyone to answer it mate , its an impossibility at present to expect such.
I will await the last report and see if it makes any sense.
If it was sorted do you think Nist would have to outsource the task in the light of Fema's balls up Mate ?
I have looked at many collapse photographs over the last few weeks and all of them with the exception of WTC7 have left the main core standing.
WTC7 main core was shredded.
I don't really expect anyone to answer it mate , its an impossibility at present to expect such.
I will await the last report and see if it makes any sense.
Here's a good vid on the pentagon case, with some good info and a super sound track so I hope your speakers are good. 8)
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
stuneville said:
Well clearly there was a conspiracy to destroy the WTC...we're just trying to work out who and why.
petagon conspiracy
hi guys,
a friend of mine sent me this link to a presentation on the plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11.
ive seen a lot of diff points of view on this topic and i think this one is prolly the best to date.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
hi guys,
a friend of mine sent me this link to a presentation on the plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11.
ive seen a lot of diff points of view on this topic and i think this one is prolly the best to date.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
Re: petagon conspiracy
First off, it's pretty well known that the "mysterious blue tarp" being carried around is a tent. They were set up all over the lawn of the Pentagon after the attack, no mystery there.
Secondly, and I apologize if this has already been brought up, the plane wreckage did not smash through multiple layers of reinforced concrete walls. The only wall at the Pentagon that is reinforced concrete are the outer walls. This particular section was recently renovated to withstand a car bomb attack, and had blast-proof windows installed - they weighed 2000 lbs each! Thus the unbroken windows above the entrance hole.
The remaining rings of the Pentagon are simple masonry walls made up of 2 layers of common brick - not reinforced concrete. The infamous "punch-out hole" is obviously made up of this simple brick construction.
But the plane wreckage at the Pentagon did not have to pass through any other rings besides the reinforced concrete outer wall and the masonry wall in the service area. How can this be? Because the first floor of the Pentagon is an open floor plan - the rings noticed from above don't start until the second floor! The only other walls the wreckage had to pass through would have been simple drywall-on-stud walls, and the occasional support column.
It was a wheel, btw, that punched out that hole.
And now that the Moussaoui trial is over, the trial exhibits are available to the public. This includes pics of the Pentagon damage, including 2 black boxes recovered from the wreckage, plane parts, and graphic pics of dead bodies. So be forewarned, as there are some gruesome pics here, as well as all the other exhibits from the trial.
eta: My bad, the black boxes in the trial exhibits are from Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania.
Wow, so much bad info in that it's hard to start!wombat103 said:
First off, it's pretty well known that the "mysterious blue tarp" being carried around is a tent. They were set up all over the lawn of the Pentagon after the attack, no mystery there.
Secondly, and I apologize if this has already been brought up, the plane wreckage did not smash through multiple layers of reinforced concrete walls. The only wall at the Pentagon that is reinforced concrete are the outer walls. This particular section was recently renovated to withstand a car bomb attack, and had blast-proof windows installed - they weighed 2000 lbs each! Thus the unbroken windows above the entrance hole.
The remaining rings of the Pentagon are simple masonry walls made up of 2 layers of common brick - not reinforced concrete. The infamous "punch-out hole" is obviously made up of this simple brick construction.
But the plane wreckage at the Pentagon did not have to pass through any other rings besides the reinforced concrete outer wall and the masonry wall in the service area. How can this be? Because the first floor of the Pentagon is an open floor plan - the rings noticed from above don't start until the second floor! The only other walls the wreckage had to pass through would have been simple drywall-on-stud walls, and the occasional support column.
It was a wheel, btw, that punched out that hole.
And now that the Moussaoui trial is over, the trial exhibits are available to the public. This includes pics of the Pentagon damage, including 2 black boxes recovered from the wreckage, plane parts, and graphic pics of dead bodies. So be forewarned, as there are some gruesome pics here, as well as all the other exhibits from the trial.
eta: My bad, the black boxes in the trial exhibits are from Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,628
any evidence for this suggestion ?
I can make some against
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/asce_en.html
If the official report avoids this exit hole as seems to be the case how do you know it was a wheel Bucko ?
And by all means look at the official report
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
I sure as hell don't know what made that hole !