jprobs on 16/3/2006 at 12:52
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
It seems the government has the evidence, and I won't dispute that it probably does point to who they say it points to, but why keep it confidential when it could clear up this whole situation?
What situation? A cult resembling "Trekie" fans clammering about helicoptors dropping bombs on downtown NewYork? A large percentage of sugured up internet junkies may buy into this crap. But I hope it's safe to assume that the general poulation is a bit more sensible.
Along these lines.... Remeber a photo taken many years ago of "(
http://images.scotsman.com/2005/01/21/nessiebig.jpg) Nessie?
They guy on his death bed admitted the fraud and yet people still believe there is some sort of big dinosaur living in that lake.
My point is, the US Government could give out all the evidence they have, and Kooks will still believe there is a cover-up.
quinch on 16/3/2006 at 13:15
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Clearly, you've got to have bodies flying in every direction, when an aircraft traveling at 400 kmh rams into a building. I mean, its almost like momentum doesn't exist, and they can magically reverse the direction in which they are going.
like that piece of debris that landed butter side up..
SubJeff on 16/3/2006 at 13:18
Quote:
My point is, the US Government could give out all the evidence they have, and Kooks will still believe there is a cover-up.
That doesn't prove anything though. Kooks will believe lots of stuff and some of it will turn out to be true.
Printer's Devil on 16/3/2006 at 13:52
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
It wasn't specifically mentioned in Loose Change, but can someone explain to me how Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a 2-seater turboprop in August 2001, was able to pilot a Boeing 767 at 500mph into the Pentagon just a month later?
I'm willing to admit it was probably just bad luck on his part that he picked the only side of the Pentagon that had been reinforced to withstand such an attack, too.
Once again, you are relying on some shaky information when you ask these questions. Was Hani the only hijacker on the plane with flight training (other countries have flight schools too)? He may have been the backup, which might explain his shaky performance, or it could have been a case of the nerves, or he was hungover or...you get the point. The opinion of the flight instructor was that Hani was barely competent. He might fall out of the sky, he might not, depending on the situation. Remember too that whoever took control of that plane did not have to take off (or land safely), just manouver it long enough to crash into a large, very recognizable building.
As for the one Pentagon's one reinforced wall, does the Pentagon usually hand out blueprints or accurately inform journalists all about its security measures? Especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack? I'd wager that the Pentagon is pretty well reinforced all around, with access tunnels and the like. There could be robot ninja guards too, but that would only be a haphazard guess, much like
Loose Change. As for why the US federal government is supposedly remaning silent or retaining important information, put yourself in their TOP SECRET shoes.
Conspiracy Nut: Excuse me, can you confirm that the President and his neocon cronies conspired to murder innocent Americans and terrify the whole world so that the CIA could steal gold from the Jewish super-bankers of New York?
Government: ?!?!? Fuck off, you retard, before I kick you in the balls!
Everything is possible, StD, but not necessarily
probable. Talk to you guys later, I'm off to work.
jprobs on 16/3/2006 at 14:53
I second everything Printer's Devil just said.
Shug on 16/3/2006 at 15:38
Quote Posted by Azal
I sick of metaphorically kicking the retards.
haha get it
SD on 16/3/2006 at 16:02
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
The opinion of the flight instructor was that Hani was barely competent. He might fall out of the sky, he might not, depending on the situation. Remember too that whoever took control of that plane did not have to take off (or land safely), just manouver it long enough to crash into a large, very recognizable building.
The WTC towers, I can believe, were a reasonably easy target owing to their gargantuan size, but the Pentagon is a low-rise building. It is absolutely not an easy manoeuvre to pilot a jumbo jet into the side of it, even if you are a competent pilot with a lot of experience flying these planes.
Quote:
As for why the US federal government is supposedly remaning silent or retaining important information, put yourself in their TOP SECRET shoes.
Why would, for example, CCTV footage taken from businesses near the Pentagon be particularly secret? What could they possibly feature that necessitated it be kept from public view?
It's only natural that faced with unanswered questions like these, many people believe that something is being covered up.
Quote:
Everything is possible, StD, but not necessarily
probable.Of course, but by flat refusing to answer reasonable questions, governments leave themselves open to suspicion.
dvrabel on 16/3/2006 at 16:41
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
It is absolutely not an easy manoeuvre to pilot a jumbo jet into the side of it, even if you are a competent pilot with a lot of experience flying these planes.
Crashing into a building easier than landing and one hopes that even trainee pilots of large jet aircraft find landing easy.
Defcon on 16/3/2006 at 18:40
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'd just like to pick on this one point because it is indicitive of many believers of the official story. People hear and parrot things without thinking about them. If making a plane invisible to radar was as simple as that don't you think that radar is completely and utterly useless? LOL Migs all had transponders off sorry america cold war lost. Come on.
IIRC most airport radar is only designed to pick up on an aircraft's transponder. ATC also has to deal with a great of airplanes; could you imagine the chaos on the screen if it picked up everything from airplanes to birds?
Swiss Mercenary on 16/3/2006 at 19:37
Quote Posted by quinch
like that piece of debris that landed butter side up..
That thing happens to be, you know, the
exterior of the fuselage. People tend to be on the interior of it.
Not to mention the fact that you are basing your entire argument off
one photograph.
Quote:
IIRC most airport radar is only designed to pick up on an aircraft's transponder. ATC also has to deal with a great of airplanes; could you imagine the chaos on the screen if it picked up everything from airplanes to birds?
The airplane
did show up as a blip on the radar. It was also surrounded by about 5,000 other blips. Transpounders are what lets ATC identify each individual plane. Without it, they can't pin-point it.
