Hunt the Boeing
 

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

(3.5mb Flash video)

(edit: - apparently a repost ... my bad)

Thanks for the link. I've heard that theory before (and firmly believe there is something to it). I found the link pretty interesting. Thanks!

That's what I was afraid of. The whole HUGE plane into the pentagon thing never really sounded right to me. I watched on tv as we were shown clip after clip of ground zero in new york. I probably watched about 7 minutes of footage from the pentagon. Total. And I was looking for it. See, my uncle sometimes works in that area, and I wanted to make sure he was okay. BTW, he's fine. I've flown in a 75 before. One of those things hitting the side of a building the size of the pentagon at 2 feet off the ground at full throttle (basically) would have done a hell of a lot more damage than that. People gave their lives for the USA. Then the USA covered up what really happened to them and lied to the american people and, more importantly, the families of those hurt or killed in the 'attack'.

When all of this crap eventually does come out, and it probably will, things might start to get kinda ugly. I've watched as the country I love has done some pretty aweful things. When you start to put them all together, you start to wonder if the government really represents the people. The second Gulf War (or Operation Iraqi Freedom) was originally said to have begun because we had certianty that Saddam Hussen had (by had they meant has already built, bot just working on) weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. Not some automatic weapons or gernades, but weapons of mass destruction. Then we killed a hell of a lot of Iraqui people, millitary and civilian. After the war, the government said that the war was to free the Iraqi people from tyrany.

Wait, this is starting to remind me of something that happened about ten years ago... in Waco Texas. Remember that one? Wow, quite some shit. The reason the ATF was originally there was because they had a warrent to check for automatic weapons. That's it. After a hell of a lot of people died, the government said the reason they went in there was to free children who were being heald hostage. Ouch. The resembelance is astounding, as far as I'm concerned. There are a lot of other comparisons I could do, but I felt that this one really stood up.

I'd like to ask Kerry if he'd be willing to tell the truth about things of this nature if he were elected. That'd actually get my ass off the couch to vote.

do you guys understand that the only real dense part of an aircraft is the engines? the plane itself is nothing more than a aluminium tube, so travelling at top speed into the pentagon, there would be some damage where the main body hit (it would crumple up and burn) then the holes where the engines flew into. the Pentagon is not made up of the same material as the wtc, so it could stand up to the impact better than the wtc, so less damage. not putting anyone down in this post, just adding my two cents :)

So are you saying that every single part of the plane would burn into unidentifiable dust?

Great film and all, but the music annoys the FUCK out of me.

how much of the planes at the wtc were recovered? what about the one in pa?

The planes at the WTC stayed in the building, as their fuel broke free and melted the infastructure of the building. This is all many stories up. The pieces were subjected to both melting, falling an extremely long distance, and being crushed by half of one of the tallest buildings in the world. It's okay not to recover all of that one...

But if you do look at the video, despite the annoying music, it's right. There is no way in hell that you could fly a 757 that close to the ground while traveling directly forward. It's ridiculous. Isn't it incredibly suspicious that all of the videos of the incident were confiscated and NEVER released, while the WTC crash is in multiple angles?

site of the PA crash:
http://www.september11news.com/Fligh...terReuters.jpg
http://www.september11news.com/Flight93CrahSite2.jpg

which has a conspiracy theory surrounding it much like the Pentagon flight... still, I feel something is going on that the public is in the dark about.

I enjoyed the music.

It had just the right amount of ominousness.

Also, it's electronica - which everyone knows is the best form of music in the world ;)

what happened to the actual plane that was said to have been hijacked then. there were people on it, and those people died. how did that happen

interesting, it bought up some very valid points. Typical FBI- confiscating all film from nearby security cameras. Doubt we'll ever see the footage. Not in this lifetime anyway...

Loved the last song, Marilyn Mansons This is The New Sh*t.

One of the songs was from the legendary game Star Craft (not mentioned in the end credits).

A friend of mine was in the Gannett towers on the 22nd floor looking at the Pentagon as it was hit by the plane. It happened, sorry to ruin all of your fun, but it actually happened.

Nobody is disputing that something hit the Pentagon. It just wasn't a 747. Whether it was a missle or a military jet, that is what we are trying to figure out.

Of course it wasn't a 747. The plane was supposed to have been a 757, not a huge plane as compared to the 747, but still pretty good size.

edit-BTW, what he saw was a passenger jet, not a military jet or missile. He watched the thing hit the ground and burst into flames. Hard to mistake a passenger jet for a military plane or a missile.

Let me also add that I wasn't there so I can't say for certain. All I know is what my friend told me and I don't believe that he has any reason to lie to me.

Furthermore, I enjoy conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but explain to me what happened to flight 77 then, because all of those people are gone-where did they go?

Yes, I meant to say 757. Habit.

Also, where exactly did it hit the ground according to your friend? Because I can't see any marks whatsoever on the ground. One thing that makes me believe otherwise to what they're saying, is it looks like something blasted OUT. If an object that size hit a building, it wouldn't fling shards of debris hundreds of yards behind it.

I'm not saying you are a liar, and I'm not saying your friend is either. But since the FBI took all the tapes from the surrounding area, I'm betting that that is not where they stopped. Maybe your friend had a chat with someone?

Okay. There were a lot of people who saw it. It's no big secret that something crashed into the building. There was a projectile, and a loud crash and an explosion. The shock wave of the hit broke a lot of windows at the pentagon. No one doubts that something hit the pentagon. What we are talking about is that there probbly wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon. Any structural engineer can tell you that the stats released about the crash (i.e. the speed of the plane, the distance from the ground, the damage) doesn't make any sense. The boeing 757-200 (the plane said by the government to be responsible) carries about 290 people and is about 220,000 pounds takeoff. Standard info. The firefighters reached the site very quickly and found very very little wrekage. A 220,000 pound plane leaves wrekage. If you want to argue that it was destroyed in the explosion, then why wasn't the building destroyed with it? There's more.

What is important is to remember, or learn, that the nose of this plane has something called a crashdome. This is the area of the plane that is below and infront of the cockpit; the area that would first impact. This crashdone is where the plane stores electronic navigation equiptment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal, but carbon. It's shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but it is not crash resistant. The inside casting, as well as its contents, are extremly fragile. The nose would crash on impact with an obstacle, not penatrate it. You NEVER find a nose in a crashsite that involves a head on colision (the type in this case). THEREFORE, it is impossible that this carbon nose punshed a perfect 2.5 yard diameter circular hole in the steel reinforced buildings. This is not improbable, it's impossible. Because of the colapsing nose, the 747-200 would have demolished the building. The momentary spread of pressure on the building would have been like hitting the hand with a hammer. It would have broken bones. In reality, the aircraft that really hit the building punctured, and later the outer uilding colapsed. The only way to puncture instead of demolish is to localize the pressure to a smaller area. Going back to the hand anaolgy, you'd need a nail on the hammer to puncture the hand and go through. What kind of aricraft has a nose that is narrow and strong enough for this?

A missle. Missiles have heads that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration. Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers. An aircraft crashes and breaks apart whereas a missile of this type will penetrate its target.Many missles used throughout the world, let alone by the US, have decorations and colors that very closly resemble the colors of commercial airliners.

Fire fighters attest to having seen part of a plane that they identify, albeit with difficulty, as an aircraft nose. The nose of an aircraft, however, would not survive such an accident. The three buildings could not have been penetrated by the nose of a Boeing. However, a missile head made of depleted uranium could well have been capable of such damage.

My conclusion, wrkime, to your post is this: either your friend saw something fly by very fast that looked like if could have been a commercial plane, or you're friend was lying, or you don't have any friends.

I choose to beleive the former.

I suppose he could have had a "chat" with someone. I don't know it just seems like a stretch that the US gov't would go as far as 9/11 to get everyone's attention and for what? To make us paranoid? To make us go to war with Iraq? According to Bush at the time the big issue was with Afghanistan. Was that just a stepping stone to Saddam? Sure, it was a logical leap, we were already all fired up from the "terrorists" flying planes into our shit, but it all just seems a bit too complicated. Where did all those passengers go?

Ever seen a manefest for the plane, or any people morning their dead friends and family members? Nope. Only people involved with the people on the twin towers plane and the failed camp david plane. There probably never were passangers. There were, however, deaths at thye pentagon. This leads me to believe that we were attacked by an outside force, and the government may not want people to know how easy it is to shoot a missle into the pentagon.

Where did all the fuel go?

I mean, holes in walls and lack of scrapes in the ground are one thing. But several thousand gallons of burning jet fuel are another matter all together.

To fan the flames of paranoia:

There were people on a flight which never made it back to an airport for a safe landing. Those people are gone. If we are to believe that no Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, it is possible that the flight was shot down - possibly the fear of it crashing into the White House prompted the shoot down call. Then, to cover up the shoot down, a missle/unmaned plane is sent to hit the Pentagon.

One piece of information I haven't seen here is that the area of the Pentagon that was hit was basically uninhabited due to renovations that had been going on for quite some time. Additionally, according to this page, a large number of rescue and fire vehicles "just happened" to be very close to the Pentagon for a large building fire that "just happened" to go out moments before the Pentagon crash. (That page also has reports of a C-130 plane following Flight 77 as well as Flight 92.)

Whoa. Good explaination. I was still trying to think of a rational reason for all of this crap.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/image....pentagon.jpeg

This picture shows that there would for sure at least be some kind of damage to the lawn, be it from something else or scraping engines. Wow, they really should have thought this one out further. I guess they think we're stupid. :)

except the majority of US citizens firmly believe a plan hit the pentegon. If it is true that it was a missle you would see an end to Bush's presidency. Which means if it were true then no Bush haters know of this otherwise it would have leaked.

Now lets take the shot down plane/missle theory. If the plan was shot down where did it get shot down at? Someone would have noticed a plane that size crashing, unless it was over water. But why would it have been over water? There needs to be some more evidence of the missle somewhere (if it is true).

If a plane really did hit the government could quash theorys right away by releasing all the video.

A majority of american people think that Avril Lavigne writes her own music. We have a pretty poor record, as a whole, as far as thinking is concerned. Individually, like on this forum, we can be quite smart. No one has really been able to explain away any of the facts presented. Our theorys might be wrong, but they're theorys.
I presented pretty decent evidence of the missle theory (see my post about 8 posts up). The holes in the walls and lack of serious burns on the building pretty much convince me that no 757 hit the building. Actually, all planes have pretty much the same design with the crashdome. That rules out planes in general. So what's left? Other man made airborn technology. Was it a blimp or baloon? Nope. Was it a UFO? Heh. Was it a helicopter? Almost impossible. Was it an unmaned aircraft? Probably. What kind of unmaned aircraft has a depeleted uranium nose (something strong enough to brake through that many layers of steel reinforced walls)? Missile.
I don't hear any other plausable arguments and theorys. If this is just a fansity, let's hear you explain everything away (now directing this twards people who don't beleive, no one in particular).
Someone give me a better explaination. I'd feel a lot safer about my country if someone could give me something at all to redeeem the dishonesty.

Ok, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with your post, but yes, releasing the video is what we want. The fact that they DON'T implies a cover-up.

I like that. Its so simple! I wish it were black and white like that. But I think its a littie too simple. And yes, many people do believe that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that scares me.

AND many people do believe that Avril Lavigne writes her own music, and that also scares me.

I hate snopes.. what could be interesting reading ends up being "of course not STUPID, how could you be so STUPID. HEY EVERYONE, LOOK HOW STUPID THEY ARE"

or something like that ;)

Wow, this thread is amazing. I cannot believe that you people actually believe this shit. I don't believe a video produced in England has any idea that they know what they are talking about.
I am a personal trainer in DC. Next to Fannie Mae. One of my clients lost his wife in the plane that went into the Pentagon. One of my friends lost his friend in the plane that WENT INTO THE PENTAGON. Get a reality check, People. Like you all know what a fucking plane crash looks like. Talk to the people who's friends and family are gone.

Yeah, we know that a plane did go down SOMEWHERE, but it was not the Pentagon. You just tell yourself that everything happened like old faithful CNN told you, right? Well life isn't that good. Your government, MY government, are not as they tell you in the public eye. Do you think it would be more of a tribute to the people lost on that plane to believe the lie that has been told as opposed to finding out what really happened?

Sure, so instead of putting a device on the plane to steer it into the Pentagon, we make a plane and its 60 something people disappear, then in broad daylight we shoot a missile into a military building in potential view of thousands of people. Riiiight. We have the technology to make unmanned planes fly. We can certainly steer a plane into a building. So instead a big cover story has been built up to do this. Like watching terrorists take out our twin towers was not enough to convince the public.

lol. You have a closed mind so I'm not even going to try showing you the light. Continue watching CNN and enjoy your little sheltered life. :)

I guess in your case an open mind is an empty mind. LOL. HaHa. My little sheltered life, huh? The one that was actually within ten miles from the Pentagon? I wandered into this section from another link that pointed to this thread. That was a mistake.

Actually I've seen the wreckage of several planes. I was there when a DC-8 cargo plane went down in Rancho Cordova in an auction yard. My friends and I followed the smoke back there just in time to get escorted off by the sheriff, but we all saw it. THERE WAS WRECKAGE EVERYWHERE. I'm entertained to see that just because you have loose connections to what happened, you know more than the experts and the firemen who were actually there. You should bother actually reading the posts before you make an utter fool of yourself. "I don't believe a video produced in England has any idea that they know what they are talking about." BWAHAHAHA. I hope you're kidding. As for people you know died in the crash, my uncle was in the building at the time and he lost friends, too. No one here is insinuating that people didn't die. What we are saying is that the facts are in stark contrast to the information released about the specifics of the crash. Any one can see that what was released differs from the truth. Something went into the Pentagon. Something killed those people, both in the Pentagon, and in the 757-200. I hope you can appreciate THIS reality check. Your eyes are closed. Open them before you walk into a wall.

I believe it 100 percent. I dont think its irrational and is very much a possibility. The govt. could have taken the passengers and exterminated them without raising suspicion. I wouldn't doubt for a second that Bush and company would not do such a thing.

To what purpose? Do you also doubt that terrorist controlled planes went into the towers?

I'd rather try to formulate theorys about what really happened, then accept a baltent lie. At least Church is actually trying.

As far as the twin towers, I have no information to contradict the information that was released. But, thgis is much different. Here we have a case where there are facts that contradict what was released. I haven't heard you explain away anything that I've stated. Good luck.

If you watch the "conspiracy" video of the WTC crash, it is not far fetched either. I believe the only terrorist that attacked the WTC was the US Govt.

Where? What video? Did I miss something?

I posted it in another thread on the paronoa board. Do a search and find it.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, check this link for the WTC "conpiracy"

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67071

Yes.

And I like how you edited your other post.

I see all. ;)

Thanks for the link, rdr4evr. And go Church.

Church, yes I did edit my other post. that statement was inflammatory and did not contribute to the discussion. I had second thoughts about it, so I went and edited it.

See, unlike these two quotes, I tried to make sure that my part of the conversation was not a personal attack. There is a difference between calling bullshit bullshit and calling a person an utter fool or telling them they have a closed mind.

That is some messed up stuff. Part of me believes it, part of me doesn't. How and why would a government do something like this? It doesn't make sense to me.

I hate believing something and then seeing something different to what I believe and then start to question what I originaly thought. Part of the video makes sense, part doesn't. Damn, I'm confused!

I have now spent the last two hours googling things on this and Im one confused woman :crazy:

The questions that this does bring up are mind boggling.....I dont know what to think at all

Pocon I did not call you an utter fool. I said you should read the posts before making an utter fool of yourself. This suggests future tense. I was making a suggestion. But you have taken a lot of your credibility away by not taking on the facts head on. You haven't actually taken anything on, besides Church's heory. I can appreciate that it may or may not have a few holes in it, but you should be trying to do something constructive. In your mind, we are all wrong. Prove it to us. Address what's being said. Otherwise, keep off.

Willravel, prepare to read a variety of cogent arguments that I believe will disassemble this tissue paper theory. I have spent the last several hours doing yardwork and noodling through the various discussions on this page. Here are the results. Enjoy

Fallacies of the video.

1. no wreckage. Fire is hot. Aluminum does not handle heat well. Planes are made of aluminum. Stuff a plane into a building made of cinderblock, brick, and steel, and follow it with a lot of jet fuel. The building acts as an oven, concentrating the heat. Most of the wreckage is thereby consumed in the pentagon oven.
2. “sounded like a missile". According to the flash page, some witnesses said it sounded like a missile. FAA says the plane was traveling at 530 miles per hour, several hundred feet off the ground. Doppler effect would dictate that when a person actually heard the plane from less than a thousand yards away, the sound would be a shriek. I mean, who has really heard a jet flying at 530 mph? From a few hundred yards away? So it is a sound few have actually heard. Also, the sound would taper off to a jet rumble, except that it was cut off when the plane entered the pentagon.
3. The security camera images. I do not know about this camera, but many cameras take pics every second or two. Now if the plane were traveling at 530 mph, it would cover 277 ft per second. The plane itself is only 155 feet long (JANE’S). Theoretically, it could have come in between video snaps. This also depends on the amount of space covered by the camera. Either way, any image would probably be very blurry. Also, was this camera recording digitally or direct to video? Because if I understand right, a digital image can get pretty obscured if the image changes quickly and dramatically.
4. The power of the nosecone. Someone (I forget who) suggested that a nosecone could not puncture through several walls. I think it could, if the plane was traveling at 530 mph. I have heard stories of pieces of straw imbedded in telephone poles during 600 mph winds from tornadoes. I have seen lead bullets punch through wood, when you could not hammer that lead through the wood. I have seen people break bricks with their bare hands and a fast enough karate chop. I think a plane traveling that speed could punch neatly through a wall.

One more point I would like to make is that many of you people actually have more faith in the federal govt than I do. You believe that the feds are capable of killing thousands of people (including the WTC) hushing hundreds of witnesses, quieting hundreds of firefighters, law enforcement officials, and military officials, and doing it all with a straight face. All to start attacking islam and the middle east. In other words, Bush went from being a drunk frat boy cheerleader whose family name got him into and through college, who shirked his military duty, and he has know turned into this devious mastermind capable of killing thousands of his own people? This is the same government that cannot control iraq, that couldn’t kill castro, etc… See, us Americans are not very subtle. This does not mean capable, but certainly not subtle. Instead of arranging a coup in Iraq, we blow everything to hell. We smash Afghanistan. We reject the Kyoto accords instead of working to a compromise. Even our last sex scandal involved an intern and a freakin’ cigar. At least Kennedy had a movie star. I don’t think our leaders are capable of doing something this devious and sophisticated. Thank you for your time.

Sounds about right.

The only question I really have is why the damage area is so minimal. That rendered pic of a 757 and the Pentagon shows that the plane is relatively HUGE (assuming it is to scale, and it does appear so based on window port size). The tail alone is almost the height of the building.

But you can see in the pics that window areas just feet from the entry point are intact.

Willravel, to paraphrase what you said, if I had read the posts, it would have prevented me from making an an utter fool of myself. See, your implication was that I had not read the posts, therefore I was a fool. So yes, you called me an utter fool.

Fallacies of your argument:
1. If there was a fire substantial enough to melt aluminum to the point that there is basically nothing left but the nose of the plane would have melted the subframe of the building in all three buildings. This was NOT the case. The frame was hit in the first building, therefore it colapsed, but there was little heat generated by the fire. Seperate interviews done by local papers of the firemen said that they put out a medium fire and there was little damage done by the fire to the buildings. Now what you need to understand is that at the World Trade Center, the fire produced by the plane fuel burning was so hot that it melted the frames of the building for over 13 floors in both buildings. Heat of this kind would have done a great amount of damage. At the pentagon, there was grass that wasen't even singed as close as 100 feet from the impact. I don't think you can explain this, but you're welcome to try.

2. A plane of the size of a 757-200 could not fly that fast that close to the ground. The plane simply does not have the capabilities of flying that fast that low. It can reach speed near that in the air, but the terminal velocity coupled with heavy air resistance the closer you get to thje ground basically makes that impossible. People don't know what missles sound like in the US, unless they're military. I really don't care what they said about the sound.

3.Doesn't make any difference really. I wasn't going off the still. It's far to blurry.

4. Yes, but not that small of a hole. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the cone was just fine because the plane was going so fast, but the cockpit crumbled immediatally. The cockpit is STRONGER then the nose. Therefore, if the nose was strong enough to puncture the buildings, then the cockpit was as well. The hole would be much larger if the cockpit was intact. That's the bottom line. Also, in all the crashes I've ever seen, and believe that I've been doing a lot of research lately, the nose always crumbles. No matter the speed, no matter the direction of impact. I urge you to call an expert to verify this, because you probably won't beleive me. I have.

If it were so devious and sophisticated, why are we talking here? They DID make mistakes. Serious mistakes. The facts are at the countrys fingertips, but any good magician or trickster can tell you that the best tool they have is missdirection. Iraq and the Taliban/Alqueda/other terrorist groups have kept the Americans scared shitless and at the edge of our seats. Everyone mourned and we jumped head first into the hunt. We didn't look back. Now that the war basically took a dump on us, we are breathing for a second and everything is starting to come into focus.

No you are not paraphrasing what I said, you are missinterpreting what I said. There's a difference. I was saying that you should read the rest of the posts before you say something that contradicts the posts, and then you'd make a fool of yourself. Seeing as you have now read the posts and watched the flash movie, I'd say you are no longer in that danger. Understand? So no I did not call you an utter fool. Further discussion of the utter fool topic should be moved from the paranoid thread to the knowledge thread. We can finish it there if you still don't believe me.

What purpose would the government have to launch a clandestine attack against it's own citizens? Give me something so we can debate. Otherwise, this thread is a waste of time.

We have been trying to figure that out. That is the final question of the thread. We are still having trouble with people believing the facts, though. After we address that, we can combine our efforts and work twards the goal of reasoning. I don't think something this important is a waste of time.

trying not to threadjack... but basically cribbed from JFK, as I thought about the what does the government have to gain...

• cold war is over. There is no more "enemy" of communists who live "over there" that may come "over here" to bomb us and threaten our way of life.
  
• military has been downsizing for years, military spending is down. companies are consolidating to save costs on R&D and production.
  
• economy is down. war generally is good for economies as goods have to be produced creating jobs and tax revenue.

This is probably the best reason for what happened. Thanks Cynthetiq!

So why go through will 9/11? Why not just say that x country has WMD, like oh, I don't know, lets say Iraq, and go with that. Hell, there's plenty of countries that aren't exactly our friends, take your pick. I mean, what you're proposing is that our government is so staggeringly evil, it boggles the mind. When the Nazis staged an attack on a German facility, saying it was the work of the Polish, the only people they killed were a couple dozen ethnic Poles that they rounded up to be the Polish army. I'm sorry that I don't buy into your cute little conspiracy theory.

It wasn't enough over the 12 years of sanctions that the UN and America placed on Iraq. The situation had to have a catilist. Something had to light the fires beneith the American people. BOOM! An attack on American soil.
Why Iraq? Oil!
"...I don't buy into your cute little conspiracy theory." 'Cute'? Listin, you are making really poor arguments. The only cute thing on this forum is your attempts to talk on the level of the rest of us. So, next time, before you start to think about trying to belittle others with little or no reason, try to write like a big boy? M'kay?

No worries. If we're going to talk about the possibility that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, we'd have to talk about why common knowledge says it did.

Sorry to everyone else about that last post, but it made me mad. I hope people will stop putting little comments that are dissrespectful and rude. This is a forum. It's a public medium for open discussion. It's not a place to hide behind your anonymity and bad mouth others. This thread is about figuring out the facts and how they effect you and me.

I think the new paradigm is that war does not actually make money for the economy. Under Clinton's term, or, if you prefer, under a period of congress for 8 years controlled by the republicans and newt gingrich, our country had unprecedented levels of prosperity. Everyone made money. Cheney, Bush, Senior Bush, you, me, your parents. and as far as war stimulating technology, war did not lead to the massive growth of the Internet. It was after the cold war and before 9/11 that the dow quintupled. So I don't buy the good for economy theory.

So try to give us a real reason why our govt would do this.

poor george. president by daddy´s supreme court decision. and no respect. no klout.
no chance in hell for his buddys to implement their nefarious schemes of control under the suspicious eyes of a dubious majority. how convenient and timely were these "gasp" terrorist attacks for this basically untrusted and dirty (actually fuckin fithy) crew of ex oil execs. damn, absolute unquestioned authority. all wrapped in a flag. where do you think gw would be today without 9 11? if you really do not suspect that there was some kinda shady shit goin down i gotta bridge i´ll sell you.

pentagon? missile. twin towers? saudi military coordinated between bush and saudi royal families with the carlyle group and halliburton taking care of details and counting the cash.

Well said.

Agreed. This may have been true in the WWI and WWII years, when production of steel and other weapon material was badly needed, however, I don't think that this holds in the 21st century.

We are not building new factories and hijacking others for munitions and armor output anymore.

The military spending thing, I can buy....but still, I dont think any US leader and cabinet are a) as maniacal or b) organised enough to pull something like this off.

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense either. If the US government was able to set up an elaborate scheme using the Saudi military, Saudi royals and two private-sector corporations to destroy the twin towers, why would they be so lax in their attention to detail with the attack on the Pentagon? Seems a bit silly to just shoot a missle at a building when you are able to stage two fully-fueled passenger airlines at the Twin Towers.

Or are you saying that never happened? Did the Saudi military create two jets exactly like the American Airlines jets for this purpose, then fly them in a suicide mission into the twin towers, where, shortly after an implosion of the building was set off?

Sounds more than just a little far-fetched for me. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Conspiracy theories abound. They always do. :rolleyes:

Not that I don't believe the government isn't capable of such a thing, to do it in 9 months is sort of a stretch. GWB was in office right at 9 months before all this happened. Hell it takes over a month to get a replacement Social Security card, and thats just a small piece of thick paper with a little ink dabbed over the top lol. The Bush Administration had already inherited a full plate of things to keep them occupied,including a recession. The odds of pulling something off with the huge logistics that would be required for an operation like this without one leak, and to do it in nine months, are so astronomical it would be all but impossible. Now I in no way shape or form claim to know what happened for certain, and there are some very interesting irregularities being brought to light, but for our governement/ GWB to pull something off this catastrophic just to go to war against Iraq isn't something I think they [government/GWB] are capable of. I do however, think there are some interesting questions that need to be answered. Until there is positive "without a doubt" proof our government was involved in some way I have to trust our elected officials, after all it's America and people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that simple courtesy extends all the way to the top of the food chain including the president.

What I don't understand is "why?"

OK, let's assume it was a missle... why would someone intentionally shoot themseleves? Mind you, pentagon city is where all our military intelligence is and someone who would make the decision to have a missle shot to cover something else, would also have their office sitting somewhere in that building. (Not likely)

Next, if that wasn't an airplane hitting the pentagon, then where did it go? If a farmer can find a crashed UFO in the middle of the desert in Nevada, someone somewhere would've seen a fighter jet shoot down that air plane.

Seriously, it doesn't make sense that there was some kind of bogus story going on here, and the analysis of wreckage pictures does nothing to support a bogus story to me either. I'm no expert at looking at damage to buildings. I wouldn't know if it was an airplane, missile, or dump truck thrown from 20 yards. Get an expert to say there is no way in hell a passenger plane could've done that, and then, maybe this story has some credibility.

And if there was a conspiracy, the Democrats would have to be involved in some way shape or form. I guarantee John Kerry would be shouting it from the highest rooftop about right now. There's just know way the government could pull something like that off without both sides knowing at least something about it.

I know this has happened a few years ago so my mind may be cloudy. Didn't Al-Quaida and/or the Taliban eventually take credit for masterminding and then initiating these attacks?


I guess they (the Bush's) also planned the attacks on the WTC back when Clinton was in office. BTW I didn't know that dubya's dad was on the supreme court and could appoint people to the presidency. :hmm:

well sargent guy, look at the facts. What? none o this coulda been planned while cigar smokin bill was in office? yeah sure, they was hibernatin. musta been that fuckin arab kidneyless,cave dwelling,no telephone, criminal masteremind. shaken not stirred.
as far as the pentagon, how bout them fuel loaded wings? i would think they woulda done some kinda noticeable damage to the right and left side of that suspiciously small hole where allegedly this terrorist attack went down. yeah, one more paranoid conspiracy theorist. but c´mon, explain...http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html

Dude, I don't even know if that's sarcasm or you're being serious. Facts? Huh? What? Are you saying he was hibernating? Or was that sarcasm? "musta been that fuckin arab kidneyless,cave dwelling,no telephone, criminal masteremind. shaken not stirred." What the hell does that even mean?

If you're referring to the idea that Bin laden was in some cave before and during 9/11.... then show me these facts.

Dude, I'm not even questioning the pentagon attack. When they were showing the footage of it, what little there was, I questioned where all the airlplane parts were. I'm talking about the WTC.

We may not have the expertise to know the exact damage a plane would cause to a building like this, but I think we can all agree that airplane fuel is quite explosive when ignited. As a matter of fact, this plane had a lot of fuel. The fuel ignited. Obviously, if the fuel were to ignite, there would be quite an explosion, and then quite a fire. Now go back and look at the picture. Also go to the link above. I've tried to formulate arguments against this. I can't explain all of the evidence that is right in front of me. I wish it wasn't true. Believe me, I'd rather live in a country where my goverment can trust the people to be rational about whatever truths there are. I can't. They don't trust us, or they don't want us to know a truth that would bring to light horrible actions.

bin laden is a fuck. but a very convenient fuck. show me where he takes credit for any of this madness. Its pretty easy to find where he says he had no idea but he´s happy as hell that it happened. shit, who the fuck invented this guy? the anti russian freedom fighter buddy of the peace loving republican natural gas pipeline crew. shaken not stirred, bond, james bond. are you really that gullible?

So some of you are saying that bush is behind all of this. When Bush was just a little shrub, he was a cheerleader in prep school. Then he went to college, where his family name got him in and through school. Then he started a business looking for oil in texas. He could not find any, (In Texas!) so the company failed. Then he tried again, failed too. Meanwhile, he got a dui and was later accused of snorting coke as a young adult. Then he organizes a group where he is a minority shareholder that buys a baseball team. Then his family name buys him a governorship, then the presidency. Then in a nine month period, his iq shoots up 200 points, he develops machiavellian mad crazy skills, and murders several hundred Americans (or thousands, if you add the wtc).

So is this the Bush we are talking about? The one who displayed moderate competency for the first 40 years of his life? Cause I don't buy it.

Also, I think less damage was done to the Pentagon because it is a military building, and its standards are higher. It is our head of the military, so it would not be completely crushed by a standard attack. Isn't this the reason for the rings of hallways, to isolate wartime damage? Also, notice that when most missiles hit buildings, they explode, but not in massive fireballs. Plane fuel burns, missiles explode. Look at the Oklahoma bombing. I don't think the US uses incendiary missiles. If we have to hit a hardened target and punch a hole through it, we use high explosives. If we hit a soft, flammable target, we use incendiary bombs. To deliver enough incendiary material in a missile would be cost prohibitive. Much more power can be put in a smaller missile with high explosives, so that is what we use.

I'm hitting home runs, give me another conspiracy theory. I'm typing with one hand behind my back and chewing bubble gum. Can I get a "hell yeah!"

Dude, the president actually makes very few plans. All he does is ok things so they can go through. I'm sure foreign affairs/military leaders came up with it.

He obviously is not that genius, considering we have discovered all sorts of loop holes in his attacks and we will soon discover all of his diabolical conspiracies :D .

I've just read the entire thread, and while I don't really have much to say for either side that hasn't already been said, I have made a few observations.



It seems to me that what you believe about what happened on 9/11 has a lot to do with your political beliefs. Bush supporters will stick behind their man, whereas those of us who are none too fond of GWB will attempt to make him out to be as maniacal/plotting/negative as possible. It's only natural, I suppose, but it definitly subtracts much of our ability to discuss this subject rationally.

That said, I do not believe any single political party is behind this. It's not a Republican conspiracy, nor is it a Democratic conspiracy. Is it Bush? I doubt it. I think that if anything, he's only a puppet for those who I think may be behind this. I'm tempted to say those people are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc, but that seems too obvious. Maybe what we've been told is correct, and it's the Islam fundamentalists. I really don't know.

Here are the reasons I think certain groups would benefit from 9/11.

Islam Fundamentalists -- The obvious choice, really. Who else is nutty enough to do something like this? Occam's Razor says these are the people behind it, but I always thought Occam's Razor was BS.

Those in favor of globilization -- Create an attack on the US to create a cause for war in the middle east. Iraq happens to be in a very good geographical position for purposes of launching attacks into the surrounding areas.

Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center -- He gained 3.2 billion dollars to rebuild the WTC (well, not the WTC, but a new building(s) in place of the towers).


I didn't say any of this as well as I wanted to, but that's an attempt anyway.

Here's what I think...
---
A 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon. I just can't see it from the pictures in this thread, there should be more fire and more chunks of airplane lying around.

The missing American Airlines flight was identified as having been hijacked and was subsequently shot down by US planes. In a panic after having shot down a planeload of Americans someone had to come up with a cover story. So, they crashed something (not a 757) into the Penatgon, in a nonvital area, to explain the missing plane and the people on board that plane.
----

But what do I know? I'm just a Canadian.

Good post. I consider myself to be a Bush supporter (still), but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew what really happened. We can hope that what was done was for our own good, but to be honest I'm not holding my breath on that one. I agree that the probabliity of the dem or rep being behind it is unlikely. It's really popular and trendy to blame Bush for everything, but I get the feeling he's as confused as we are on alot of this. His dad left some big shoes, and an even bigger hat. Bush senior was a brilliant speaker and politician. I get the feeling this trait isn't hereditary. I find it to be more likely that Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, etc might be behind it. The likely true masterminds probably arn't known to the public. If they are, then we probably don't know their true colors (some national/international organization of some kind). For all we know it was the Blue Cross, but as far as motive, planing, and ability goes, all signs point to military, foreign or domestic.

Wait, you mentioned Senior Bush. I got it! It must be the Illuminati! Not the middle eastern version, but the Bavarian Illuminati. Remember senior's speech on a thousand points of light? only they could be diabolical and strong enough to make this attack to destabilize society.

While I am a Bush supporter, This was basically what I was going to say. I've read the whole thread, and several of the links, and have this to add:

1. Either Bush is the deer in the headlights, scared until he decides what to do guy in the Mchael Moore Film, or he is a diabolical mastermind, but not both. He's not a good enough actor to play both the deer in headlights act, the cheerleader to the fireman and recovery workers, and to get choked up and shed real tears, all about a plot that he or his supporters hatched.

2. Bin Laden took credit for the attacks.

3. The disputed evidence of the pentagon plane, I'll grant you, is interesting, but I've seen no such dispute of the World Trade Center planes, other than the "ghost plane" thing, which, if anything, just shows that a big plane could impact a large building and not act or explode the way we think it might. This, in turn, lends credibility to a big plane hitting the pentagon and not acting or exploding the way we (who have seen explosions most often from Hollywood) think it might.

4. If the evil conspirators wanted to hatch a plot like this, I'll grant you that a portion of the pentagon that was largely unoccupied would make a good target. The conspirators would presumably have been American, and American military at that, and while they wanted justification for increasing the military, or conquering the Middle East, or whatever, they wouldn't want to really kill lots of Americans, right? But then why would they have attacked the world trade center, too? I'm sure that an attack on the pentagon alone would have been huge news, and enough fror the evil plotters to justify whatever they wanted to do, why would they also attack the twin towers?
5. Okay, assuming that the trade center attacks were "real" and the Pentagon attack was fake, why would they have chosen a plane with the wife of the Solicitor General of the United States, Charles Olson, on it to do this? He and Bush are friends (I know, that could just be more fuel on the fire, so to speak, for the conspiracy theorists. Wanted to teach him a lesson or something, yeah, right.)
6. Further, assuming the world trade center attacks were real and the pentagon attacks were fake, there are a whole slew of plot "holes" that must be accounted for.

what did they do with the real plane?

how did the federal government, that can't do anything fast, plan this complex operation within a few hours?

What fighter pilot flew the f16? Even the most brainwashed would never volunteer to crash his plane into the pentagon! And for all this to happen, it would have had to have been a skilled pilot. Oh, it was remote controlled? flying at that speed and that low to the ground? Why haven't we used such technology for our most important missions before? And how did they signal it to fire a missile in the fraction of a second when it would be blocked from view and in an instant before it crashed?

While a Bush supporter, I am certainly not his biggest fan. But I don't think he, or anyone else working for the federal government, either would or could have pulled this off. I'm not convinced!

There is only one video where "Bin Laden" took responsibility for 9/11. Of that, and the numerious other video's released of Bin Laden, the 9/11 one is clearly not him. I remember I saw a website with pics discussing this, I will do a search and post it here if I find it.

Wow, that was pretty interesting. I'd never heard of anything like that before.

Makes you think.

Let's break this down and separate what could have happened to the plane from who and where the missile came from. I will engage in speculation similar to that of conspiracy theorists and use minimal logic when possible.


I: Where did the plane go?

-The plane was shot down by the USAF because the people in the plane were going to die anyway and this was the only way to prevent further casualties on the ground. The plane was disabled, not destroyed, and drifted out over the Atlantic Ocean where ti crashed.

-The plane was destined to head overseas to land in a sympathetic nation where the terrorists would hold them as hostages for bargaining power. The plane ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and crashed in deep water where wreckage was not obvious.

-The plane was landed at a US aribase and the passengers were subjected to experiments/disposed of/handed over to the aliens for experimentation/whatever.

-The plane was remotely controlled and brought out over the atlantic and crashed to conceal evidence. (The missile was used to create a more precise explosion and minimize military casualties.)

-The plane actually did crash and crash scene photos could not see the hole because of smoke and water spray from fire vehicles. There was no missile.

II: Where did the missile come from?

-Terrorists fired a black market cruise missile (the plane crashed in one of the first two scenarios above) and this was covered up by the Government in order to conceal this horrifying fact and our vulnerability from the eyes of the public.

-The US military fired a missile after removing the plane (in the third or fourth scenario) in order to cause minimal damage to fellow military personnel.

-Multiple anti-aircraft missiles were fired, the plane suffered the fate described in the first scenario above, and a second missile went astray and accidentally struck the Pentagon

-The plane actually did crash and crash scene photos could not see the hole because of smoke and water spray from fire vehicles. There was no missile.


Mix and match, create your own conspiracy theory.

<b>Theodore Olson, husband of alleged Flt. 77 passenger, Barbara Olson:</b>
<a href="http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/9/kaminer-w.html">
"There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the U.S. Supreme Court in March, 2002.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/olson.html">THE MOTHER OF ALL LIES ABOUT 9/11 - Barbara Olson's Phone Call From Flight 77</a><br><br><p>
<a href="http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlanCabal.cfm">
MIRACLES AND WONDERS</a><p CLASS="bodycopy">Last week, <i>USA Today </i>reported a joint effort between Qualcomm
and American Airlines' to allow passengers to make cellphone calls from aircraft in flight. According
to the story, the satellite-based system employs a "Pico cell" to act as a small cellular tower.</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">"It worked great," gushed Monte Ford, American Airline's chief information officer. "I called
the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them
loud and clear."</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">Before this new "Pico cell," it was nigh on impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft
in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 feet or speeds in excess of 230 mph.</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy"><b>Yet despite this, passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick and Edward Felt all managed
to place calls from Flight 93 on the morning of September 11. Peter Hanson, en route to Disneyland
with his wife and daughter, phoned his dad from Flight 175. Madeline Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant,
made a very dramatic call from Flight 11 as it sped to the North Tower. Barbara Olson made two calls,
collect, to her husband at his government office from Flight 77 as it made its way to the Pentagon.</b></p></p>

<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">Each call was initially reported as coming from a cellphone. Later, when skepticism reared
its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that
$10-a-minute Airfones were involved. Olson was an easy candidate for Airfone (one doesn't call
collect from a cell), but as the stories developed, Olson—and Felt—were said to have
called from inside locked lavatories. No Airfone there.</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">In the very near future, numerous technological miracles and wonders will rise up out of the
ashes of that terrible day, much the way the space program supposedly gave us Tang and Velcro. Satam
Al-Suqami's indestructible passport, for one, is currently under the microscope in the Reverse
Engineering Department at Area 51. My old passport was falling apart when I finally replaced it
last year, just from spending 10 years in my pocket. His survived the destruction of the World Trade
Center. I want one of those.</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">Likewise, professional bowlers could benefit from inquiries into whatever physical force
brought about the collapse of WTC 7. And as a frequent flyer who finds long-term parking difficult
and expensive, I'd like to know by what mechanism Mohammed Atta got to Portland, ME, where he was
videotaped boarding a flight to Logan Airport in Boston. His rental car was found at Logan.</p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy"><b>And last but not least, every suburban homeowner will want the miraculous PentaGrass. Whatever
that lawn at the Pentagon is made out of, it sure is amazing stuff—it resists and repels fire,
explosion, skid marks, aircraft debris, jet fuel, luggage and body parts. Shit from your neighbor's
dog won't stand a chance!</b></p></p>
<p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">Who would've thought there'd be a silver lining even in the debris cloud made that Tuesday morning?
</p><p CLASS="bodycopy"><p CLASS="bodycopy">
<a href="http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlanCabal.cfm">http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news&columns/AlanCabal.cfm</a><br><p>
<a href="http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html">Click here to view Photos of the Amazing Penta-Lawn on 9/11</a><br><br><p>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/">http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/</a><br><br><p>
<a href="http://physics911.org/net/modules/xfsection/print.php?articleid=1">SPINE Discussion about Cellphone Calls and 9/11</a>

<b>The link at the beginning of my above post needs to be emphasized here:
</b><a href="http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/olson.html">THE MOTHER OF ALL LIES ABOUT 9/11 - Barbara Olson's Phone Call From Flight 77
</a> Copyright Joe Vialls, 27 March 2002
"This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.<br>
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?<br>
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.<br>
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.<br>
<b>Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.</b><br>
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.<br>
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.<br>
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:<br>
“Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”<br>
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson......"<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/">http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/</a>
<br>
As for me....I do not know what to think of all this.....but even after three
years....it still smells....similar to the way the recently discredited 2004
Florida "felon voter purge list" smells (whoops, after CNN sued to get the
courts to open the secret purge list for public scrutiny, it was discovered
that 2000+ names on the list were of voters who had applied for and received
clemency from Gov. Jeb Bush, and.....after Jeb and his Secretary of State
both swore that the list intended to prevent up to 48,000 people from voting,
was rechecked to insure accuracy, but had to be kept secret to "protect privacy" CNN sucessfully persuaded a state court judge to order disclosure
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes,
<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml">
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml</a><br>
9/11 and Florida voting both smell like the Nazi's 1934 "Reichstag Fire", to me:
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm">
When Democracy Failed: Warnings of History</a>

I think that we can blame a lot of this on movies. In movies they make stuff look a lot worse than it is. Gore, explosions and so on and so forth. Example is cars, cars don't blow up in burning balls of flame, unless there was a bomb underneath it. So, when a plane hits a building and the building doesn't explode like a nuke with a musharoom cloud, it can't be real, and plus don't missles actually destroy more than that was damaged at the pentagon

But the airplane fuel should have at least singed the grass for chrisake.

It is a very interesting theory and may prove true, but right now it is nothing more than conjecture. Although had it been on Clinton's watch the Right would undoubtedly use the same information they are poo-pooing to hang the noose around Clinton's throat so I don't see why the right seems to be so righteous.

I will say this, from what I remember of the 9/11 explanations the plane that hit the Pentagon did so at an angle (as if it were on its side) where the wing actually hit the building then the plane in force. I do not ever remember hearing that it was 2 feet above the ground and hit straight on as the tape and the writings claim.

Perhaps my memory is faulty but that is how I remember the explanation going.

Also, the tape does not explain where the 757 actually went if it didn't hit the Pentagon. The one bad thing about vastly huge conspiracy theories is that very very large groups of people have to be in on itand all have to be extremely silent about every little detail (when dealing with so many people it would be impossible). Here the AT's who tracked the plane, the firefighters, everybody in the Pentagon, the airline, all the surrounding airports, and so on, because the 757 had to go somewhere it didn't just vanish into thin air. Those people did die so....

Hell, Watergate only had a handful of people and it was leaked and shown. Imagine 100's more knowing and nothing being leaked, totally unfathomable. Even Roswell (whether you believe or not) was leaked.

The only way a conspiracy can work is when the fewest people know and even then it's iffy. Kennedy's assassination I think is a great example of a conspiracy that worked. I believe very very few knew, enough disinformation was released to push conspiracy theorists in one direction and the truth was hidden possibly forever.

Okay, for all you people that say "we" need to get a reality check; a plane hit the pentagon. For you information I live in DC too. Think rationally for one damn minute.

I completely believe in you having your own beliefs but actually try to visualize it for what it could be.

They show video after video of WTC. (We fear for our lives)

They show about 5 minutes of the Pentagon. (We just got even more scared - - That’s our fucking Pentagon [Our Government]). We don’t even have to see the plane and we believe everything they tell us.

We are now ready and willing to support Bush on going to war to show them not to mess with America.

They show video after video of us taking shit out in the so called “War on Terrorism”.

We actually believe the stories of how the people in Iraq love us. Listen to the stories of soldiers who have returned; they talk of hate from the Iraqi people.

We have killed many innocent people and we have lost many innocent lives. If you think that nobody would ever do this then you are mistaken. We live in a fucked up world.

Think about this, what clothes are you wearing? Do you fit into a stereotypical group? Even if you dress differently because you say you aren’t a follower you just became a stereotype. Now if I know this, just like most everyone does, isn’t it possible that there are ways to direct your attention to a certain idea. Think big, think HUGE!!

We as Americans are especially fragile. We live in the so called “Land Of The Free”. You take some of that freedom away and we adapt. We follow because our Government has our best interest at heart.

I have said a lot but let’s just say that this is one big world and I seriously doubt that our Goverment is completely ran by America. Remember we are in debt.



Chris

And what about the Shoggoth that may or may not have escaped? What of it!?

when you add it all up, whatever the truths, untruths or outright lies, it just obviously don´t smell right. for this to have occured in the manner presented to the public is pretty much ludicrous. we´ll probably never know what actually went down that day but it just doesn´t add up. it reminds me of some of the evidence and behind the scenes manipulation in the failed iran hostage rescue that Reagan and crew pulled off when ousting Carter. Nah, some stinky shit was pulled off somehow and managed to be completely covered up with an almost textbook manipulation of the media. any honest questioning of the "official" version is antipatriotic. if you dare to disagree with our fearless leaders you are an al qaeda sympathizer or actual terrorist in the wings. absolute unquestioning allegiance is not an american value that i personally find to be an admirable quality.
George Bush without his war on terror is a dumb guy with a rich dad who has failed miserably in every thing he´s touched. with his resume he probably couldn´t swing a job flipping burgers at mickey d´s.

I think Elvis came up with the idea of 9/11.

Your hilarious darkmagnus; people actually lost their lives in a result of what happened on 9/11 and people are still losing their lives everyday as a result. Joke all you want, but just remember your the only one laughing here.



-Chris

Chris,

My comment is no more far fetched then the the unfounded "conspiracy theories" that are being spoken about in this thread.

What I said is no more appalling then what you guys are proposing in this thread.

Dark

I would like to think that the president doesnt know anything about this, but weirder things have happened.

Dark, Someone did come up with 9/11, that's why it happened. If you paid close attention to a lot of stuff it's almost clear that Bush is involved with a few weird events. Him and his father to this day meet with the Bin Laden family, but I guess that could just be a courtesy thing considering they have funded many of the Bush companys.

Wait how come we have not found any missles of mass destruction, why the hell are we still there fighting, and why the hell are we probably going to attck Iran. Oh my bad; because Bush says they have missles of mass destruction; the same reason we attcked Iraq.

If we are helping the people of Iraq so much why do they hate us? Why have a seen footage of soldiers running over a civilians car with their tank just because he did'nt do as they said.

Butyour right, these are just conspiracy theories; this is just something that someone made up that a few are following; it could'nt be possible, NOT the American Goverment, NOT Bush!!

Too many wrong things going on. I could continue to believe what they tell me everyday on tv but this so called "conspiracy theory" sounds a lot more legit.



-Chris

CConner, If our government were so capable of doing devious actions like blowing up our own people and crashing planes everywhere without getting caught, then it would have been nothing for them to plant evidence of wmd's in Iraq. Hell, we could have made it look like they came from Syria, Iran, or even France. So why have we not "found" any wmd's in Iraq? Because we don't plant fake wmds and we don't kill our own people to start wars.