Swiss Mercenary on 17/3/2006 at 00:16
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Some are answered, or potentially answered, there. But by no means
all of them.
I'm sorry, I missed the cellphones.
So, if you won't dispute the claims made there, two pasanger planes hit the WTC, a plane hit the pentagon, the towers were not brought down by explosives, and the pentagon's blast-resistant windows did their job.
Not much of a friggin conspiracy left, huh? :idea:
steo on 17/3/2006 at 01:01
Its as biased as most of the conspiracy theory sites and while it claims to prove the molten steel reports wrong it even states that jet fuel burns at 1500°F maximum and the highest temperature measured was 1832°F. It also states that steel melts at 2750°F which certainly doesn't explain the pockets of molten steel found by the firefighters.
The story of the passengers attempting to retake control and the plane crashing seems very unlikely to me. At 32000 feet, even in a stall, the plane would take a considerable amount of time to reach the ground. Combine that with the scattered debris, a pilot claiming to have shot it down and Donald Rumsfeld stating that the plane was shot down. Sure he claims it was a slip of the tongue but it seems an incredibly unusual thing to accidently say, especially given the circumstances.
WTC7 was also desinged to withstand fires and according to FEMAs reports the fire was not fuelled by the diesel generators. Then theres order to 'pull it' just before it collapsed, which in demolition terms means to bring down the building. They claim that he meant evacuate the building but when the order was given everyone had already been evacuated.
All seems at least a little bit fishy in my opinion.
Swiss Mercenary on 17/3/2006 at 01:14
Quote Posted by steo
The story of the passengers attempting to retake control and the plane crashing seems very unlikely to me. At 32000 feet, even in a stall, the plane would take a considerable amount of time to reach the ground. Combine that with the scattered debris, a pilot claiming to have shot it down and Donald Rumsfeld stating that the plane was shot down. Sure he claims it was a slip of the tongue but it seems an incredibly unusual thing to accidently say, especially given the circumstances.
I'm personally not passing judgement on this. Frankly, does it really matter if the hi-jacked plane was shot down? They wouldn't have gotten out of it alive. I can't think of another sensible option.
It boggles the mind how people can't imagine why a skyscraper that was struck by a goddamn 767 fully loaded with fuel would collapse.
SD on 17/3/2006 at 01:29
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
It boggles the mind how people can't imagine why a skyscraper that was struck by a goddamn 767 fully loaded with fuel would collapse.
Possibly because it's the only time in history that a skyscraper struck by an aircraft has actually collapsed?
Jonesy on 17/3/2006 at 01:36
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Possibly because it's the only time in history that a skyscraper struck by an aircraft has actually collapsed?
A B-25 is a great deal smaller than a 767.
AR Master on 17/3/2006 at 01:53
I'm more concerned about the American government covering up the moon landing thing just to justify an ILLEGAL INVASION OF RUSSIA
NO BLOOD FOR MOON SOIL
Printer's Devil on 17/3/2006 at 02:45
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
...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?
The initial response to seize the footage was probably standard procedure--to obtain evidence for later analysis (assuming you believe they didn't choreograph things to begin with). Crash investigators do this as a matter of course when a plane goes down. Even in mundane cases, they often don't release much FDR information until their investigation is complete.
The later decision to refuse access to the footage seems more like the reflex of an image conscious administration . History's most powerful military was delivered the equivalent of a bitch-slap by a small group of terrorists in a civilian jetliner. Think of the
shame. Billions of dollars in advanced hardware and highly trained personnel were rendered (for a moment) entirely
useless. Do you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted that humiliating moment broadcast as frequently as the WTC attacks? That's my take on it anyway.
godismygoldfish on 17/3/2006 at 03:15
Just an interesting side note, when it takes more rare coincidences for the official story to work better than the one that the 'kooks' are saying, I'de say Occam's Razor comes into play.
Occam's Razor has joined the gameInline Image:
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/images/icons/icon17.gif(Also, how the hell do you call this administration honest, with all the shit that has gone down while it's been in power? This is a president who won the vote by less than 6% TWICE!)
Ko0K on 17/3/2006 at 03:35
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
The initial response to seize the footage was probably standard procedure--to obtain evidence for later analysis (assuming you believe they didn't choreograph things to begin with). Crash investigators do this as a matter of course when a plane goes down. Even in mundane cases, they often don't release much FDR information until their investigation is complete.
The later decision to refuse access to the footage seems more like the reflex of an image conscious administration . History's most powerful military was delivered the equivalent of a bitch-slap by a small group of terrorists in a civilian jetliner. Think of the
shame. Billions of dollars in advanced hardware and highly trained personnel were rendered (for a moment) entirely
useless. Do you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted that humiliating moment broadcast as frequently as the WTC attacks? That's my take on it anyway.
I don't think *I* can speak for the government, but I agree on the footage issue. It would only make sense to secure those tapes for analysis purposes. As for why they're not public yet, all I can say is that this administration has been secretive from the get-go, and it doesn't surprise me one bit that they are hush about this, as well.
Then again, can you blame them? Dubbya is a little slow, so he needs time to digest stuff before he can say things about it. Heh heh... Well, there's my take.
Epos Nix on 17/3/2006 at 04:06
So, five Israelis were arrested directly after the towers were struck on 9/11 with a white van full of explosives around the George Washington Bridge. These five Israelis were sent home to Israel 71 days later. They belonged to a group called Mossad, essentially the Israeli equivelant of the Secret Service, whose motto as of a couple years ago was "By way of deception, thou shalt do war".
(
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html) Full story with an abudence of sources.
And here's a (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad) Wikipedia entry on the Mossad. Notice that they have a branch totally dedicated to "psychological warfare, propaganda and deception operations". Funny how this falls into place with a fake bin Laden video that the government embraces as fact and a real bin Laden video, where he says the US is at the mercy of the Jews, which the government dismisses as propaganda.
