Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/2/2002 1:49:38 PM EDT
I found this link over at [url]www.survivalforum.com[/url] I don't know what to think about it. [url]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm[/url] Sorry if it is old news.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 3:25:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2002 3:27:02 PM EDT by Kevin]
Here's what I think - OH PLEASE!!!!!! That plane didn't have a perfect approach. It hit more in front of the building & crashed at more of a nose-in angle. I don't doubt there are conspiracies out there but this ain't one of them!
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 3:30:43 PM EDT
Yes, this hoax is old news. Don't forward it anywhere else.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 6:22:11 PM EDT
Sorry, I'm not buying the hoax thing. There are too many unanswered questions, too many conflicting reports, and too many pictures to write this one off. I think that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon but something smaller. Do you people believe the standard blurb on OK or Kennedy? Hopefully not. Well don't believe this blurb either. Another good reference is www.thepowerhour.com. Some of the blurb people are contending that the reason there are no bodies outside the P. is that the 757 went through the building and the passengers were burnt strapped to their seats. And they found debris inside the bldg. Another report says the reason for not finding any bodies inside the bldg. is that the intense heat vaporized the bodies and everything. So which one is it? And there are pictures showing that the P. wall was still intact after the small plane, or whatever, hit, then later, the wall crumbled. Too many questions. If this one even starts to look feasible, before you can sneeze, there'll be full fledged martial law enacted. With war brewing in the middle east, God have mercy on us.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:14:39 PM EDT
Why turn this into a bizarre hoax or conspiracy? Check out Occam's razor. I would not expect to find much debris of any kind when a large plane loaded with fuel impacts a heavily reinforced structure at several hundred miles per hour. The wings would have likely folded back on impact, giving the appearance of a smaller opening than the size of the plane.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:49:31 PM EDT
If anyone has ever seen the program on TLC (the Learning Channel) where the government crashed an F4 Phantom into a concrete structure simulating a reactor core you'd know why there's no debris visible. I think I may have an mpeg of it somewhere and if I can find it and reduce it to a decent size I'll post it. The jet was mounted on a track and rolling cart leading directly to this massive concrete barrier and accelerated to about 400 mph, when the thing impacted the structure it just completely vaporized. There was nothing but dust thrown up and apparently there were nothing bigger than a fist-sized piece remaining afterwards. fwiw, the concrete barrier remained intact. Pretty wild.
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 7:56:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/2/2002 8:09:27 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By Kingme: Sorry, I'm not buying the hoax thing. There are too many unanswered questions, too many conflicting reports, and too many pictures to write this one off. I think that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon but something smaller. Do you people believe the standard blurb on OK or Kennedy? Hopefully not. Well don't believe this blurb either. Another good reference is www.thepowerhour.com. Some of the blurb people are contending that the reason there are no bodies outside the P. is that the 757 went through the building and the passengers were burnt strapped to their seats. And they found debris inside the bldg. Another report says the reason for not finding any bodies inside the bldg. is that the intense heat vaporized the bodies and everything. So which one is it? And there are pictures showing that the P. wall was still intact after the small plane, or whatever, hit, then later, the wall crumbled. Too many questions. If this one even starts to look feasible, before you can sneeze, there'll be full fledged martial law enacted. With war brewing in the middle east, God have mercy on us.
View Quote
I know, EVERYTHING is a freaking conspiracy.[whacko] Please enlighten us, or great one, about what really happened at OK, by which I think you mean Oklahoma City. The Kennedy thing was not what the Warren Commission said for sure, but please tell us who was involved. I have some pretty good ideas (it wasn't Oswald, at least not alone), but you seem to have all the definitive answers. Please explain why they would say it was a passenger liner if it was really a small plane. How would it being a small plane instead of a larger cause martial law? And yes, most, if not all, of the people on the airliners that hit the WTC vaporized, so what is your point?
Link Posted: 4/2/2002 9:23:58 PM EDT
I'm sure all those people who watched the plane hit the 5gon are in on it too? Please... [whacko]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:35:40 AM EDT
*[b]SIGH[/b]* [url]http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm[/url] Aviator [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:41:48 AM EDT
Maybe it was a "Ghost Plane".
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:17:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 9:19:35 AM EDT by Kevin]
Originally Posted By Kingme: Do you people believe the standard blurb on OK or Kennedy? Hopefully not.
View Quote
I don't believe the Kennedy account, I'm sure he let that girl drown and then the Kennedy family payed to make it go away. You were talking about Teddy right?
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:28:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2002 2:22:55 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
Check my post on this thread and you'll see actual pictures of the plane pieces. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=101970[/url] Mike Here pics of plane parts: [img]http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/art/slides/terrorism/pentagon1/8.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:53:27 PM EDT
Part I I just read the www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm rebuttal of what didn’t happen to the pentagon. There are too many inconsistencies to call this a creditable reference. Let me show you. The first question is did the plane penetrate the building or did the outer wall stop it. According to snopes relating the 60 Minutes II accounting, “"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall." When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building. It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.“ And “…the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building…” So they’re establishing that the building is super strong with a fragment prevention, bullet resisting cloth liner. Also, the plane lost much of its kinetic energy by hitting the ground first. It would appear that they’re saying it would be difficult for a plane to crash through the Pentagon wall. But snopes continues and says, “that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring”. Remember that phrase, “to the ground floor”: not into the ground floor of the first ring and then into the ground floor of the third ring, but just “to” the third ring. Later they quote the “New York Times” which said that the plane “hit…between the first and second floor”. Hm-m-m-m Listen to what they’re suggesting. The plane came in, hit the ground, lost some kinetic energy but stayed intact, bounced up, entered the Pentagon between the first and second floor then dived down “to” the ground floor of the third ring. Interesting path for a plane that supposedly suffered no damage when it hit the ground. Snopes quotes an Army press release that said, “On the inside of the second ring…a…hole…about 12-feet wide [was] punched [by] an aircraft engine…” Doesn’t a 757 have two engines. What happened to the other engine? And what’s this “inside” of the second ring stuff mean? Since there was some kind of an “internal service alley”, does this indicate that the outside of the second ring was not penetrated? Part II next
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:54:27 PM EDT
Part II And this is really good. Snopes says, “the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during initial impact [does that mean when it hit the ground?], then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building’s interior…” What’s that law that says a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Snopes is suggesting that the outer wings, in motion towards the Pentagon, suddenly had a change in direction upon impact and are now in motion towards the fuselage (some angle sideways to the Pentagon). Just how much of an angle did the direction of motion of the outer wings have to make in order to get tucked into the fuselage to not show an impact mark on the wall, 1degree, 15 degrees, 45 degrees? And in what time frame did this happen? The plane is going some, let’s say, 300MPH, on impact. The distance from the nose of the plane to the wing joint is, I guess, about 70 feet. The time it took to crunch the fuselage from the nose to the wing joint is .1591 seconds. This is the time, which the outer wings had to change direction in order to be tucked in towards the fuselage and not make a mark on the wall. Give me a break! Then snopes tries to belittle the newscasters by saying“…the newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower…” This should have read, “…the newscasters first hand reporting said that a small plane…” I could go on, but you get my drift. There are too many contradictions to this rebuttal. Suggest you go to www.thepowerhour.com to get the real story.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 6:59:16 PM EDT
I have a buddy that I served with in the Army who is a controller at the helo-port. The plane came in so low that it took out light polls. My buddy had a front row seat to all of this. Anyone who thinks that this is a conspiracy is of questionable mental soundness.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:08:44 PM EDT
The truth, according to you and some other tinfoil hat types. You already have your mind made up that everything is a conspiracy. I am still waiting for you to explain why they would say a 757 hit if it was a small plane. Why would it matter. Plus the fact that a small plane would hardly dent that place. Look at the looney who flew his light plane into the building in Florida. No real damage to speak of. Oh yeah, www.thepowerhour.com. Great lunatic website. Spouting this garbage written by a pansy Frenchman with his own axe to grind. He is another Frenchman who doesn't think that we should be doing what we are doing in Afghanistan and this is his "proof". Total bunk. This website is also spouting the crap from those supposed Americans who were stupid enough to go to Israel, spout lies about massacres, side with the Palestinians and try to insert themselves between two opposing forces and then whine about coming under fire. DUH!
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 7:33:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 7:37:31 PM EDT by Attman]
"suddenly had a change in direction upon impact and are now in motion towards the fuselage " Inward, as in "tucked in" to the fuselage back toward the tail. "What happened to the other engine?" Just because they didn't mention the other one doesn't mean it didn't exist. They pointed out the interesting one that made a big round hole in the wall. Where did all those people from the plane go? (If it didn't crash into the pentagon) A 757 has got to be 2 stories high isn't it? Hitting the ground [i]and[/i] between the 2nd and 3rd floor.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:25:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 8:35:13 PM EDT by Kingme]
Info about the towers. F.Y.I. Part I NY fireman's brother: 'Something other than planes' toppled WTC/Comments on Our 9.11 Firehouse Film Article x ** TOP_VIEW ** x The Bigger Picture 4.2.02 NY fireman's brother: 'Something other than planes' toppled WTC ** Comments on Our 9.11 Firehouse Film Article We received an email from the brother of fireman Joe C. of FDNY's Engine 7. Joe was depicted in the 9.11 firehouse documentary discussed in our recent article 'Major 9.11 Oddities Revealed in NY Firehouse Documentary'. We've reprinted the entire email from Chris C. below, along with our reply to him. Chris agrees with our basic premise that it was NOT the plane crashes which brought down the WTC towers, and with some of the other key points in our article. However, he feels that the initial extensive damage to the north tower lobby was caused by a fireball descending the elevator shafts. He also says that what sounds like explosions going off, on the footage taken by filmmaker Gedeon, is the sound of bodies and debris hitting. We did receive an email in response to our article which stated there were NO elevator shafts directly linking the WTC lobby with levels 78 and above, where the plane struck the north tower. Reportedly, at the 78th floor one had to change from express elevators to local elevators in different shafts to reach the higher levels. This makes it even more unlikely a descending fireball of burning fuel could have caused the lobby damage. There were also numerous reports from firemen and others that explosives of some kind were detonating continually in the WTC towers subsequent to the planes' impacts. Although this may not be what is heard on Gedeon's footage, there is no doubt explosions were going off in the WTC towers during that time. Major 911 oddities Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 05:59:02 -0800 Hi. I just finished the firefighters point-by-point analysis of the 911 tape. I believe something should be clarified relating to the WTC's elevator shafts. To make clear, the North Tower was reported to have hit about the 93rd floor, not the 80th as commonly stated. Now for the shafts...The WTC's elevator system was made up with express and local elevators. If you needed to got to the 89th floor, you first took an express to the (I believe) 78th floor and then transferred to the 89th. This would mean the shafts at the 93rd floor would extend downward only to the 78th floor. Unless there was a bank of elevators for freight or whatever that went the entire height of the building, the idea of jet fuel descending to the lobby through the elevator shafts would be impossible. Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. -James = = = = 9.29.01 NYC Firemen: THERE WERE 'BOMBS IN THE BUILDING' CyberspaceOrbit.com - Crucial info/evidence: Explosives toppled WTC - - - - - - - - the movie http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towerblast.html the notes and debate http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towrcmmnt.htm movie by itself http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/gunblast21.gif
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:28:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 8:32:55 PM EDT by Kingme]
Part II Study the debate and related support images, seismic indicators, 1st-hand accounts. Notice -- the deepest crater not by the towers but away near bldgs 6 and 7 http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towrcmmnt.htm 1st-hand acct's saying string of detonations went off http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towrcmmnt.htm firemen, medics say bombs inside http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html ___________________________________ 9.29.01 NY Fireman: There were 'BOMBS IN THE BUILDING!' Keep in mind the NYFD's chief arson investigator said on on TV on 9.12 that internal explosives WERE USED to bring down the WTC towers! - - - - - - - - http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html Louie 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. September 12, 2001 We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a BOMB went off. WE THINK THERE WAS BOMBS SET IN THE BUILDING. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out. There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:30:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/3/2002 8:52:43 PM EDT by Kingme]
Part III Subject: Major 9.11 Oddities Revealed in Firehouse Documentary Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:37:19 -0500 Hi, I was just reading the article "Major 9.11 Oddities in Firehouse Documentary" and I have a couple of points that I would like to mention to you. Let me start by saying that this article has very valid points but there are a couple of things that are off. I just want to say I believe that these towers were brought down by something other than two planes but I have to say that isn't there a possibility that the South Tower, even though hit second, came down first because of the point of impact. Since the point of impact was lower, this would make the tower more top-heavy than the North Tower. Therefore the South Tower would come down first. The issue on the lobby of the WTC looking like a plane hit down there. There was no explosion at the base of the WTC. When the first plane hit, the pressure of that hit sent a fire ball straight down and blew out the windows. There have been many eyewitnesses who saw the ball of fire not only in the North Tower but also in the South Tower when the second plane hit. As you watch the footage of the firemen of Engine 7 Ladder 1 enter the North Tower you here Gideon say the there were two people on fire in the lobby. I don't think those people walked down 90 flights of stairs on fire. They caught fire when the plane hit and they were standing in the lobby as a ball of fire came. You are correct in saying that there was no fire in the lobby but there was a fire ball at the point of impact. The second point I would like to correct you on is about the several explosions that were heard in the background of the tape while the Firefighters were setting up their command post. Those were the explosions of bodies hitting the concrete floor outside and they were also landing on top of the revolving doors in the lobby. You had said in your point that the explosions were never even commented on, but everyone who saw the special heard them say that those sounds were bodies. My brother is Joe C. of Engine 7 whom you've quoted in the article, and they have seen the unedited version of the tape long before the rest of the public and there is no question about those explosions because they are shown in the unedited version. CBS obviously did not want to show that on TV. Chris C.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:31:37 PM EDT
Part IV Hello Chris: Thanks so much for writing. Whether or not this makes any real difference, I want to say right off that I was born and raised in New York City, and lived there until the age of 22. I am and always will be in many ways a New Yorker, and so what happened on September 11 means a hell of a lot to me. As for what you said about what we took as the sound of explosions heard on Gedeon's footage: we do have on file a statement made by a NYC firefighter, published in People Magazine Online, who said he and colleagues DEFINITELY heard other explosions going off when they were in the WTC subsequent to the plane impacts. Therefore, we assumed those were the sounds that were heard on Gedeon's film. In regard to what you said about a fireball descending into the lobby, perhaps you would find interesting some information noted in one of many emails we received on our article. Reportedly there were NO direct elevator shafts connecting the levels where the plane hit with the lobby: one had to change from an express elevator to a local elevator in a DIFFERENT SHAFT. This makes it even more unlikely in our humble opinion that ALL that lobby damage was from such a descending fireball. Of course we could be wrong. Thanks again and please convey our deepest feelings of kinship and solidarity to your brother and all the incredible people in the FDNY. Take care, John
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:40:19 PM EDT
The above is some e-mail between various people. I didn't check out the links. Hopefully they're OK. Probably should have started a new topic. Oh well.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:42:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2002 6:10:57 AM EDT by Kingme]
LarryG, David Von Kliest of The Power Hour a frenchmen? Which site did you visit? You can listen to TPH 8-11:am EST on www.m2ktalk.com
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 8:50:58 PM EDT
Kingme..You ever been to the Pentagon?? Did you even look at the pictures? You ever been to an aircraft reclaimation site? If not [b]SHUT THE HELL UP!![/b] I have been to the PentagonNUMEROUS times, since my father and mother BOTH worked there (Dad in the AF control room underground, and Mom in the Army JAG office) and yes, the Pentagon has little allys between each ring (you would see them if you looked at the pics). I have also been to 7 aircraft reclaimation sights., and can tell you that depending on the angle of impact, tht the size of the debris can vary. Go troll someplace else.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:02:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:02:24 PM EDT
Calm down Hydguy, Just pointing out a controversey. Not claiming to be an expert. Yes, I have viewed the pictures. Thank you for confirming that, "and yes, the Pentagon has little allys between each ring" So what do you make of the comment that the "inner" side of the ring had the hole? How could the inner side have a hole and not the outer side? Perhaps you could clarify this for us.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:06:30 PM EDT
And one more thing, notice the scorching on the top of the Pentagon. Couldn't happen if it was a "truck bomb". As for the "expolosives" in the WTC, all I can say is Surrrreee.... Jet fuel when burning gets a little warm. And when standing in puddles gets even warmer. I have no doubt that the fuel from the planes brought the WTC down. And it wasn't JUST the fuel, it was also the weight of the upper floors collapsing suddenly onto the weakened structures of where the planes hit.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 9:14:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kingme: So what do you make of the comment that the "inner" side of the ring had the hole? How could the inner side have a hole and not the outer side? Perhaps you could clarify this for us.
View Quote
Very easy.. the engine went THROUGH the wall.(A hole goes through a body or structure) goes through They never said that there was a patch of material missing from the inside of the wall, just a hole in the wall of the second ring. Watch footage of aircraft crash tests. They come apart in all kinds of ways. No controversy to it. We have eye witnesses, phonecalls from the plane right before impact (or is that a conspiracy too??) and a big smoking hole in the Pentagon.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 1:55:50 PM EDT
Kingme and anybody else stupid enough to take this thing seriously: I'll believe that it is a hoax if you can answer one question for me: "Where's the Plane?" If it didn't hit the Pentagon then what happened to the plane and it's passengers? I've got a friend whose cousin was on that plane and the family would love to have her back. On the other hand: I work with an EMT from Fairfax County who was on the scene that day and he has verified that there were numerous pieces of the plane in the wreckage. Small, broken and very burnt pieces of plane, mind you. I have a friend who works Crystal City and half of her office saw the plane crash into the Pentagon with thier own eyes. I was late getting into work that day and was still on the Metro when the plane hit, but people from my office who were on the way out of the building saw the plane fly over head and heard the crash soon after.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 8:50:35 PM EDT
Hoplophile, if anyone tried to answer where the plane is, that would be speculation at this point. It's hard enough to work with facts, in this case mostly pictures, let alone specualtion and let somebody jump on your speculation and try to railroad you (you know the tinfoil hat stuff). There's simply too many unanswered questions. Some of the pictures show a wooden stool with an open book on it and another shows a computer monitor not even cinged, right next to the collasped part of the building. How do you account for a supposed fire ball and melted steel with this staring at you? Hydguy says "We have...phonecalls from the plane right before impact..." Where can we find these? Present them. Is there a link? We'd like to hear them. Fat chance. I agree this is still a low probability happening, but it's not going away any time soon. It may end up like OK and Kennedy. But the truth will eventually come out. Justice is slow but sure. The gov't is putting a bigger wedge between the people and them. I think the main reason this is escalating is that the leaders are refusing to address the situation. Also, I think people are tired of being slighted. They're tired of not being allowed to run their country.
Link Posted: 4/4/2002 9:19:22 PM EDT
Never argue with conspiracy freaks. It is pointless. Reality doesn't matter.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:06:38 AM EDT
I edited my post on page one to show a picture of the plane parts on the lawn, did ya not see it, (follow the link for more pics). I have for for more than 2 weeks now been attempting to purchase a copy of the French book which is advertised on the home page of the "Where's the Plane" web-site. I have even sent numerous e-mails to the author of said book and to date gotten NO response from him or the web site ([url]http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/[/url], very slow site) which he is supposedly director of. This is dis-information IMHO designed to distract attention away from the Israeli spy scandal. Mike
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 3:20:20 AM EDT
Wackos
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 6:42:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kingme: Some of the pictures show a wooden stool with an open book on it and another shows a computer monitor not even cinged, right next to the collasped part of the building. How do you account for a supposed fire ball and melted steel with this staring at you?
View Quote
That section stood for quite some time before it collapsed! You need to purchase file footage from the networks and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. While you're at it check the Discovery Channel/TLC/History Channel for their 'building of the Pentagon' programs to better realize how reinforced the Pentagon is. If you'll allow your 'open mind' to be open it will be easy to understand what happened, the damaged caused but yet still the structure's main integrity.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 7:17:21 AM EDT
"Where's the plane?" LEGAL DISCLAIMER!! BRM308 niether condones or encourages the maiming or killing of Gods little vermin no matter how desease ridden or annoying they are. Try this little experiment.Its fun! You will need an air compressor a brick wall the largest aluminum cigar tube you can get a length of pipe slightly larger in diameter than the cigar tube. a live mouse. Place the mouse in the cigar tube(say a little prayer for the mouse)Screw the top back on. place the cigar tube in the pipe aim the pipe at the brick wall turn the compressor all the up(about 200psi is about right) Now shoot the tube at the brick wall. See if you can identify any of the parts that are now left. See. Science can be fun!!!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:54:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kingme: Hydguy says "We have...phonecalls from the plane right before impact..." Where can we find these? Present them. Is there a link? We'd like to hear them. Fat chance.
View Quote
Follow this link to CNN about Barbara Olson: [url]www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/[/url] How about the othe cell phone calls? Do you dispute them also?
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 9:15:45 AM EDT
I work in a hi-rise directly across from the Pentagon (no obstructed view) and LOTS of our people SAW it happen. In the moments after the attack a woman was screaming hysterically to me that "It hit the Pentagon". One of my people had his attention fixed on a airliner as it flew low over his car and he watched it impact into the Pentagon. No doubt, IT HAPPENED!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 9:59:55 AM EDT
Makarov, simple, she's in on it. So was Barbara Olsen. THe problem with conspiracy whackos is that an essential element to believing in the conspiracy is the assumption that to believe in "the truth" kingme is capable of figuring out the truth when the rest of us morons simply accept what is fed us. In other words, kingme is SMARTER than us, so we cannot convince him he is wrong becasue we're not smart enough. Also, if he's wrong and the morons are right, how smart does that make him. Oh, and OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY. With "THAT" rifle.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:16:58 AM EDT
Here's my conspiracy theory: The government planted this damn fool story to throw people off of the real conspiracy--that Flight 93 what shot down by a sidewinder missile--something there is real evidence to support. They use this crap to de-legitimize the real conspiracies that actually took place.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:00:17 PM EDT
OK people, I’m not sure if you realize that your really supporting my position. Kingme is a seeker of facts. He is eager for the truth. He has read between the lines, a.k.a. analytical and critical thinking, and presented his findings. He was/is waiting for factual rebuttals. Instead he gets this: Thunderstick “Never argue with conspiracy freaks.” Entropy “Wackos” Citadelgrad87 “THe problem with conspiracy whackos…” ”In other words, kingme is SMARTER than us…” hoplophile “Kingme and anybody else stupid enough to take this thing seriously…” Since these people apparently cannot dispute kingme’s presentations, they are concurring with kingme under the guise of mild flames. These people are actually agreeing with kingme, albeit reluctantly. And they disguise their backhanded agreement by using the flaming technique so as to both present their concurring views and all the while attempting to keep other people from seeing their tacit concurrence. So thank you gentlemen, thank you and thank you. I would like to give you a word of encouragement however. It will be difficult to hold the course and maintain the drive for the truth. Many people will attack the messenger instead of offering facts. But hang in there. Justice is slow but sure. To clarify my position, I am not saying that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. My position is that the critical thinking appears to support that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Something most likely did hit the building. I can accept what makarov said, “…LOTS of our people SAW it happen. In the moments after the attack a woman was screaming hysterically to me that "It hit the Pentagon". One of my people had his attention fixed on a airliner as it flew low over his car and he watched it impact into the Pentagon” Yes, but did they see a 757? And I accept what hoplophile said, ”… an EMT from Fairfax County who was on the scene that day and he has verified that there were numerous pieces of the plane in the wreckage. Small, broken and very burnt pieces of plane, mind you…I have a friend who works Crystal City and half of her office saw the plane crash into the Pentagon with thier own eyes.” Yes, but were the pieces from a 757? And did they see a 757? Is it possible that they have actually seen this plane instead? http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/global_hawk.htm A 757 has about a 125 ft wingspan, a 155 ft fuselage, and is about 30 ft tall (with wheels up). A Global Hawk has about a 116 ft wingspan, a 44 ft fuselage, and is about 40 ft tall (with wheels up). At 350 MPH, or as one report said, 460 MPH, could the people really tell what king of plane it was in the time frame which they viewed it? Where they trained in plane recognition? Could they tell the difference between a 757 and a Global Hawk? The photos thus far are not bearing out any 757. There may be pieces parts somewhere, although some reports say the intense heat burned them up, and people saw something, but was it a 757? Help me find the answer. Inquiring minds want to know.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:00:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 11:21:33 PM EDT by Kingme]
I asked for proof of the phone calls hydguy presented. Here’s where critical thinking will not allow me to accept what he presented. Hydguy offered a media blurb saying, “Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77…” I don’t need no stinking media blurb. What I need is records of the cell phone traffic through the cell towers. Can her voice be authenticated? Show me the airtime charges for those calls. Let me listen to the conversations. Present recordings of the voice. But I am encouraged, hydguy is starting to get into critical thinking when he said “How about the othe cell phone calls? Do you dispute them also?” Yes, I do. Show me the paper work and recordings. And think about this (from the same media blurb). “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.” Everybody was in the back of the plane and this did not affect the balance of the plane! I have been of flights where the stewardess asked the passengers of a sparsely filled plane to sit near the wings to balance the plane. Now we may have an aerodynamically unbalanced aircraft making precision turns and having pinpoint accuracy in hitting its target. This is just another one of those things that don’t add up
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:21:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 11:24:11 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Technical Characteristics - Boeing 757-200 The exceptional performance of the Boeing 757-200 allows it to operate out of almost any airport in the world and perform equally well on long-distance or short-haul routes. An all-new passenger cabin interior is available on the 757-200. 757-200 Passengers Typical 3-class configuration Typical 2-class configuration Typical 1-class configuration N/A 200 228 Cargo 1,670 cu ft (43.3 cu m) Engines maximum thrust Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 40,200 lb (179 kN) Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B 43,500 lb (193.5 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2037 36,600 lb (162.8 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2040 40,100 lb (178.4 kN) Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,489 gal (43,490 l) Maximum Takeoff Weight 255,000 lb (115,680 kg) Maximum Range 3,900 nautical miles (7,222 km) Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 Basic Dimensions Wing Span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) Tail Height 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m) Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m) Based on those technical specifications, namely a 127.5 ton plane, you think that putting a few thousand pounds of people where, would do what? Also define the "back of the plane" some would say that starts immediatley behind the 1st class cabin......... Here's some critical thinking if a commercial jet didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go????????? Along with all the crew and passengers on board???? Well, waiting on a reasonable explanation for that.
Link Posted: 4/6/2002 9:11:39 PM EDT
All I can say is that the pilot made the call to sit over the wings and in some cases in front of the wings. It wasn't my call. Where did the actual 757 plane and passengers go? That's a good question. Have no comment. I think this thread has just about had it. Take care everyone.
Top Top