Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
No, we know the jets were there, we know they were full of fuel, we know that when kerosene burns it gets hot. That's a whole lot more plausible than death rays from outer space.
|
shakran, who is claiming the beam weapon came from space? And what does that have to do with the "hard evidence"....the dirt?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
That's a bit of a loaded question. You've been around here for years, if you look at the older 9/11 threads, you'll see that I initially believed many of the conspiracy theories, then researched them and came to the conclusion that the most logical explanation is that a hijacked plane was intentionally flown into each tower and the Pentagon, and that all damage caused by the attacks was a result of the plane impacts and resulting structural damage. If you'd like me to recap my issues with any of the theories, I can do that for you. Thousands of people saw planes crash into the towers and hundreds, including public servants, military servicemen, and pilots, saw a passenger jet crash into the pentagon. A simple analysis of the damage shows that it could have been caused solely by those impacts; if the simple explanation of what happens is plausible, then elaborate theories involving directed energy weapons are unnecessary and implausible, especially considering that the energy weapons required to cause that kind of damage do not exist.
|
It's only logical if one just wants to believe the government and corporate media without question. I don't think this would be safe, especially when the
Washington Post reveals that the military is targeting the "US Home Audience" with a "propaganda campaign". Sure, it may be limited to reports about Iraq. But maybe not.
I have yet to find evidence of "thousands of people" saying they saw planes crash into the towers. This evidence just does not exist. I
have found evidence of people reporting missiles!
There just isn't any evidence of planes crashing on 9/11. At the Pentagon, what we have is a round hole through multiple layers of concrete. I don't think an airplane could do that.... but a missile can. No damage to the building where the wings supposedly struck, and of course no sign of the wings, or most of the rest of the fuselage for that matter. No luggage. No sign of the rows of seats people were sitting in. Yet they were able to identify all the passengers from their DNA? This doesn't add up.
Besides, Rumsfeld is on record as saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Here's his quote and a link to the website of the Department of Defense for verification:
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptID=3845
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
We do know that passengers told their loved ones that they were going to try to overpower the hijackers.
|
Wouldn't it be something if it turned out there were no hijackers and that the whole story was a lie from beginning to end...
There's a report from a local Cleveland station that Flight 93 landed safely after a bomb scare.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
And flights 11 and 77 weren't listed in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html