http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf


I was always suss about this one, the damage that was done was no where near as bad as the WTC attacks and they claimed it was another airliner, this flash gives some pretty convincing evidence to prove it was something else.

What about all the people who died in the flight that apparently crashed into it?

Duh, they were like, aliens under human names, and it was a UFO cloaked to look like an airliner, jeez fpot, get with the conspiracies!

Interesting stuff!

Fpot: maybe that plane crashed SOMEWHERE ELSE! :O

You're right I should have googled :(

Ok, so where did the plane go again?

I reckon there was some type of conspiracy going on.

also, the fight club soundtrack rocks

Tinfoil hats on everyone!

Interesting very interesting

http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm

More info on the subject.

This so called "conspiracy" theory on the Pentagon a.k.a. hunt that boeing has been debunked like 2 years ago man.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

Read these links and learn something about physics.


last edited by Opec at 10:19:49 31/Aug/04

cool flash anyway

I haven't checked out your links opec (at work, have to wait til I get home)

but does it explain why the video footage was removed from those places? and has never been released?

No it doesn't. But one can only assume they confiscated the video to protect the family of those that parished in the crash as well as to be used in an investigation. As sad as this may sound, had the authorities not confiscated the footage, they'll be invariably turn into money making cash cow for opportinists.

But hey I could be wrong and it really is a conspiracy, kinda like JFK. But sadly for the tin-foiled loving crowds, the physical evidence etc. from credible sources pointed to the fact that a plane did crashed into the building.

last edited by Opec at 10:37:28 31/Aug/04

yeah I can understand confiscating them straight away for investigation purposes, but there's no reason why they couldn't be released, especially considering they've already released that one blurry low framerate one where you can't see s***

When you have the time, read the above links, particularly concentrate on the part where it said that the plane *did not* hit the ground. It in fact hit the building from the 2 floor and up so from that you can tell it was *not* flying that low to begin with so chances are it might not even been captured by any of these so called "camaras" on the day.

The situation at the pentagon crash was very different to the WTC. I do not wish to repeat everything in the links provided here already. Read them and make up your own mind.

But you're quite right in questioning the fact that the footage are has not been realased. That is of course, assuming that these footage even exists/captured at all in the first place and they have actually been confiscated by the said authorities.

last edited by Opec at 10:51:15 31/Aug/04

What I don't get is why you wouldn't make a copy prior to handing it in?

Probably the most interesting thing posted on QGL this year.

Brings up so many good points.

In that first article the guy says they found the bodies of all the people onboard, and then says that the plane virtually disintegrated.... that doesn't really make sense me....

Brings up so many good points.

Surely you didn't direct that comment at the flash WetWired posted? There aren't that many good points in it all, in fact as I've said it is full of holes, half-told, twisted facts.

The only point I would even think it has any merit is (if in fact the FBI did confisticated these "damning" footage") fact that the other footage exists and still have not been released by the FBI.

The flash thing is almost as good a job as the moon hoax, except in the moon hoax they did actually spend more time fooling you :)

Did you even watch the flash?

edit: please dont take this post 100% serious. It was poking fun....gessh!

last edited by Astroboy at 11:38:24 31/Aug/04

The only point I would even think it has any merit is (if in fact the FBI did confisticated these "damning" footage") fact that the other footage exists and still have not been released by the FBI.

Of couse I did. How else would I have know about this? Did you even read the articles I posted?

last edited by Opec at 11:37:25 31/Aug/04

What about jet wash? The holes in the wall? Where the f*** is the plane?

And the explotion in that video is pretty small, comparred to WTC

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

Question No

Ummm there was no evidence at all of the plane sliding. Also to slide it would have had to be flying closer to the ground.

Also in that last article they say that a big hole was punch through the second wall by one of the engines, what happened to the other engine?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

# Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"

Answer: No, but we can in this one taken by an Associated Press photographer. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.

According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

For god's sake people read and comprehend.

last edited by Opec at 11:44:52 31/Aug/04

i blame valve software in association with john titor

And you believe Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois. I wont believe 1 bit of it, there was s*** found everywhere after WTC, what you think this plane was going slower? Another reason to disbelieve, she is a woman!

Thank you for clearing 1 point out of 5.....1 down 4 to go i say

And the explotion in that video is pretty small, comparred to WTC

Look can be deceiving especially when:

1) The footage is very poor
2) You have no point of reference.

Look at the *actual* damange and repair done to the building where the plan had struck, the building composition of the Pentago and you'll see it did make a lot of damange.

The so called tomahawk missle could do not hope the same amount of damage to the Pentagon unless it's some type of huge ass nuclear device.

Also here footage of the plane *dive* into the pentagon

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/pentagon/pentagon2.htm

Yeah - she found a seat, after the whole f***ing thing disintegrated.... gg ffs.

Also, why are those eyewitnesses suddenly more credible than the others?

I don't believe either side particularly, but they are both clutching at straws. That last link you put up was just a couple of blokes giving their opinions as well, they didn't present anything particularly rock solid either.

And you believe Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois. I wont believe 1 bit of it, there was s*** found everywhere after WTC, what you think this plane was going slower? Another reason to disbelieve, she is a woman!

Thank you for clearing 1 point out of 5.....1 down 4 to go i say

And yet you belived a flash movie made by some random on the internet. I can see your not as gullible as I think....

But hey, belive that flash movie if you like, I cannot hope to convince you with actual information, no cool music, fast moving movie all compressed into 3 minutes flash movie.

Belive what you like but at least provide more than your own baseless anectdote into the discussion.

Im not a plane expert, but i hope someone here is...

Can a plane that size "dive" at such a rate? I remember a time when a plane crashed because the pilot tried to move the plane quickly, think of the force. Also there would still be s*** everywhere

Hahah that link you just posted - the pictures are so tiny - it could be f***ing anything or completely doctored ffs. Pathetic.

Also if the plane dived like that, there is NO WAY it would have hit the ground and skidded. If it was diving hard when it hit the ground, it would have disintegrated then, cos surely the earth has more momentum than the Pentagon.... thats just stupid.

last edited by AnaRoT at 11:59:13 31/Aug/04

Im not a plane expert, but i hope someone here is...

Can a plane that size "dive" at such a rate? I remember a time when a plane crashed because the pilot tried to move the plane quickly, think of the force. Also there would still be s*** everywhere

The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

That might explain why there was so little left plan that's regoniseable, for the most part the plane would have been shattered kinda like throwing a glass at the wall.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/photorotor.jpg

There your engines or what resembles an engine might not be one.

Taken from this site but I cannot authenticate the credibilities of its author:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

You guys are just trolling me I just know it so I'll posting now.


last edited by Opec at 12:08:21 31/Aug/04

bring back mulder and scully

I can post s*** off websites too

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg

The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.


Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs%5Fen.htm

You guys are just trolling me I just know it so I'll posting now.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

Question No

erm... why does it say that it hit the ground? i thought it hit the building from the 2nd floor up

still.. pentagon would have not recived that much dammage, considering it is designed to resist bombs.

Its the Pentagon, everything that happens there is a conspiracy... :)

The link I posted also talks about how aluminium disintergrates when water is sprayed on it at super heated temperatures, the main reason there is no wreckage apparently, but it also explains how this doesn't explain how a whole plane basically disappeared. Yes there is wreckage, but not enough apparently.

I'm not convinced it wasn't a plane, but I'm not fully convinced it was a plane neither, so I'll just fence sit this one.

that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes

That sounds like bulls***. What a coincidence that they had just finished that part of the building.

8-)

I think it was done by the same stuff that struck Tungusga.

/cues X-files theme :)

The evidence is blatently obvious that a missile hit the pentagon. Why would the plane fly 270deg circle and hit the ONLY part of the pentagon that wasn't being used. If it had followed a straight course (ie: EASIEST) from where it deviated it woulda hit smack bang into Mr Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!

America didn't stage 911, it was done by a few powerful people to expand US foreign policy and make a financial killing in the process. It needed the peoples backing, and it got this by scaring them.


last edited by Leon Trotsky at 13:05:41 31/Aug/04

I saw the Long Kiss Goodnight the other night as well

Hah, good call.

Ever seen video's of launching cars into brick walls ~100kph? they crumple like crazy and leave hardly anything left of the front of the car, just like the plane, increase the cars weight x80 odd, and increase it's speed 5 or 6 fold and imagine the end result, the front bumper would be the rear bumper, everything that breaks off the car as it hits the wall will continue forward - into the wall, quite possibly breaking, bending, twisting it more.
Add into it fire and debris from the wall and you've got alot of undecipherable s*** floating around on the ground until everything is cleared up.

The difference is, most airline crashes involve hitting the ground at an angle such that yes, the majority of the plane is disintegrated, but some of it is deflected off on an angle that doesn't involve it crumpling into the ground.
That's just for the extremely serious cases, and if you look at those pictures, there's f*** All left of those planes either and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have hit the ground at a perfectly perpendicular angle to the ground, whereas these planes pretty much did hit these buildings perpendicular to them.

It'd crumple to pieces, and anything that did fly off would want to travel forwards anyway.
The plane hit square on (or close enough to it), so every piece that wants to fly off the plane will fly off at the angle of incidence + the direction of travel.

If the plane was struck perpendicular on the right hand side for example with a large force, anything tearing off the plane would want to travel forwards and to the left (maybe say 45 degrees off) - and downwards taking into account as gravity pulls it down (in this case - I dont think gravity had much time to act on anything (accelerating a body approx. 9 metres per second, per second - I dont reckon it took anything more than 0.1 second for the entire plane to crash into that building from the moment the nose hit to the moment the tail tip hit it).

errr, In otherwords, everything went forward and bam into the wall...
I went back over that and kept deleting stuff to make it shorter, hopefully it still makes sense, if not, care not.

Ever seen video's of launching cars into brick walls ~100kph? they crumple like crazy and leave hardly anything left of the front of the car, just like the plane, increase the cars weight x80 odd, and increase it's speed 5 or 6 fold and imagine the end result, the front bumper would be the rear bumper, everything that breaks off the car as it hits the wall will continue forward - into the wall, quite possibly breaking, bending, twisting it more.
Add into it fire and debris from the wall and you've got alot of undecipherable s*** floating around on the ground until everything is cleared up.

But I never seen a car disappear from hitting a wall... :)

That might explain why there was so little left plan that's regoniseable, for the most part the plane would have been shattered kinda like throwing a glass at the wall.

Ding, that's basiaclly what I was trying to say. above.
Much like cars that hit brick walls at high speed turn into sugar cubes, so would a plane at it's velocities + weight.
Planes aren't designed for crashes, they're designed to be as light as possible for their size and to withstand the forces of normal takeoff/landing/wind buffing/turblance/all the other s*** that goes in in a normal flight.

But I never seen a car disappear from hitting a wall... :)

Yes, but multiply it's weight by 80 [assuming it's a little 1 tonne car] and increase it's speed from 100kph to 600 odd kph, and you're increasing the forces by way more than those numbers.
I dont think anything man-made would survive those kinds of forces if propelled at a solid object like that.

You've seen what happens with a mack truck hit's a little 1 tonne car, there's not much left. It's the same deal here, the plane get's KO'd by the wall and turned into a little sugar cube.

I'm not sure here, but aren't planes just some "web" like frame with some fibreglass slapped over the top? (obviously the frame can't be solid or it'd be too heavy to fly - but the bottom of the fuselage might be pretty solid for emergency landings etc?) Definately something that'd crumple easily with huge un-natural forces.

last edited by Loki at 13:30:38 31/Aug/04

I like Leon Trotsky hypothesis. I think it'll make a good sequal to The Long Kiss Good night, except this time it should have Bruce Willis as the star to keep trog happy

last edited by Opec at 13:28:14 31/Aug/04

Plane hit wall, plane blows up, bit fly out in all directions away from the centre of impact explosion. Very basic physics, the explosion that caused that much destruction would have been a greater force then plane going forward, why isn't debris spewn in all directions?

last edited by GumbyNoTalent at 13:44:21 31/Aug/04

Because the explosion is moving forward into the hole created by the plane at 250 mph... that is basic physics.

last edited by Bah at 13:47:26 31/Aug/04

^^ you are joking I hope, if not, please leave...

Here let me put to you another way, the fuel is contained in the wings, on exploding the tail section would have been thrown in a different direction to the momentum of the plane. Remembering that there was enough fuel in the plane to cause on big f***en fireball.

As I sated before it probably was a plane, I just have a few doubts.

Ever seen video's of launching cars into brick walls ~100kph? they crumple like crazy and leave hardly anything left of the front of the car

well how did a thin skinned alum plane manage to pass through all those walls...

when the planes hit those towers they didnt come out the other side... they disinagrated...

also the fuel is in the wings... the explosion wouldnt shoot forward through the fuslage... if nething it would take the path of least resistance and come out the back where the plane entered


doo dooo doo dooo

If you read some of those links, and there is also a snopes one, it says that on impact the wings folded in and enetered the hole, so all the explosive material (fuel) went inside the hole.

Sure there are dodgy things about the thing, but how many of you are experts on explosions and aircraft crashes?
"Oh but i saw in Die hard 3 that when the bomb went off it threw bruce willis 30 feet in the air"... please.

No, but my BSc Maths major says I know some good physics.

So then work up a mathematical model of what happens when a fuel air explosive moving at ~250 mph hits a hardened target at just above ground level.

And for extra points model what happens to things inside the aircraft (people, chairs, food carts) at those pressures and temperatures. (keeping in mind that the wings would have been alongside the fuesalage, and the resulting explosion would have directed a large inward force)

i'm just going off what i saw in the 2 tower impacts... what happened there isnt what happened here

Right I think the only way to settle this is get Suhaib to perform a little experiment for us...

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g.

The influence of the structure on the deceleration of the aircraft (and, conversely, the influence of the aircraft on the structure) can be appreciated by comparisons with aircraft belly-landed in controlled circumstances. In 1984, the Federal Aviation Administration (faa) conducted a controlled impact demonstration to evaluate the burn potential of antimisting kerosene fuel. In that test, the faa landed a Boeing 727 aircraft (weight approximately 175,000 lb) without landing gear on a gravel runway at Edwards Air Force Base. The aircraft in that test was flying approximately 250 ft/s when it made first contact, but it slid approximately 1,200 ft before it stopped. Although the test aircraft was traveling at approximately one-third the speed of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, its sliding distance was approximately 3.9 times that of the Pentagon attack aircraft. Clearly, the short stopping distance for the aircraft striking the Pentagon derived from the energy dissipated through the destruction of the aircraft and building components; the acceleration of building contents; the loss of lift when the wings were severed from the aircraft; and effective frictional and impact forces on the first-floor slab, the underside of the second-floor slab, and interior columns and walls.

A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the breakup of the aircraft and, therefore its influence on the structure. The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building.

That is some force.

The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab. Eyewitness accounts and photographs taken by a security camera suggest that the aircraft was flying on nearly a level path essentially at grade level for several hundred feet immediately prior to impact. Gashes in the facade above the second-floor slab between column lines 18 and 20 to the south of the collapse area suggest that the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left as it entered the building. The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line 14.

The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building.

The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings. The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the building.

All sounds feasible, but where is the wing debris and the imprint of the engine on the ground.

Of course theres a cover up, thats all the f***ing retarded american government does, cover up s*** it doesnt want the public to know about, they put so much money into secret organisations designed specifically to cover up and hide facts, its ridiculous. I wouldnt believe anything their government says.

From your link:

In an effort to characterize the influence of the aircraft on the structure and, by extension, to characterize the loads on the structure, the team analyzed the available data to extract information about the destruction of the aircraft.

Most likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building. Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building. Ultimately, the path of the fuselage debris passed between columns 9C and 11D, which were separated by approximately 28 ft at a depth of approximately 65 ft along the aircraft’s path. Columns 9C and 11D were severely distorted but still in place: hence the wings clearly did not survive beyond this point.

At a depth of approximately 160 ft into the building, columns 3G, 3H, 3J, and 5J were damaged but still standing, although in the direct path of the fuselage. With a maximum spacing of less than 14 ft between pairs of these columns in a projection perpendicular to the path of the fuselage, it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel. More likely, the fuselage was destroyed much earlier in its movement through the building. Therefore, the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft.

It seems to support what I said, most of the air craft was shattered by the building. Eye witnesses account of the flight path is generally contradictory but the physical evidence remains it was not a missile.

What I found more amazing is that there weren't more photos taken by news crews with an amazing frigging telephoto lens and a nack to sneak into places they weren't meant to be, of the sites after the crashed.

What I found more amazing is that there weren't more photos taken by news crews with an amazing frigging telephoto lens and a nack to sneak into places they weren't meant to be, of the sites after the crashed.

Ditto, thats why I always felt it was true but the visual aides just wheren't there to support it.

Ever seen video's of launching cars into brick walls ~100kph? they crumple like crazy and leave hardly anything left of the front of the car

I haven't read all this thread and don't really care about the subject much either way but I'll add this for people to consider.

I've seen videos of cars ramming walls, I've also seen a video of a piece of pine 2x4 being shot at a brick wall at about 200kmh and passing straight through it. There are so many deciding factors that are completely unknown to us that it makes arguing over this completely futile. The only people who could work this out is the guys from CSI, not the Miami guys as they suck but the CSI team from the original show.

Have a look around the net for images of large plane crashes.

You might be interested to see that in a good number of the photos, nothing even resembling a part of a plane is visible. The impact and resulting explosion just obliterates anything that looked like a plane.

http://www.911-strike.com/Aerial_view_17_pic_trajectory.jpg

If the wings folded and virtually disappeard like it's claimed because of the strength of the wall. And the demostrated video of aircraft and planes hitting concrete walls and virtually vaporising how was the nose able to penetrate through 3 of the rings of the pentagon. Without hardly any debris around the area of the punchout. Most of the smoke and fire was coming from the contracters trucks parked near the impact (so were a few explosions due to chemicals on board), according to the first fire officers on the scene. Look at the size of explosion from the WTC planes, they were much much larger then that at the pentagon.

There is also good evidence presenteed about jet wash, and as to why videos from the service station and hotel weren't released.


That being said there is also other evidence to debunk some of the other claims made. So i am kind of reserved on making a decesion. My initial thoughts suggest maybe not a 757 but something smaller kind of like a lear jet or something.



Edit:
Obiter take a look at some of these:
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/bpr/2661.jpg
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/bpr/2669.jpg
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/bpr/2604.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/05/26/plane3.jpg
http://www.japantoday.com/dbfiles/news/rnp_asia-48129-1_picture-35728.174E.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010705/5world.gif
http://ns.gov.gu/guam/plane.jpg


last edited by kussie at 15:28:38 31/Aug/04

rockets can be as big as planes

Look at the size of explosion from the WTC planes, they were much much larger then that at the pentagon.

Look can be deceiving especially, when in that particular footage, most of the view is blocked by the building itself where as in the WTC case there are some very good footage around.

Also with regards to the photo you linked of the Pentagon, I don't even know how they worked out what that is. Looks like an open door to me (I know it isn't but that's what it looked like to me).

rockets can be as big as planes

Man if a rocket a size of a commercial air liner was fired at the Pentagon that day, not only one part of the Pentagon would collasped half of Washington DC would be too :).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11BasicQuestions.html


there are lots of questions that need answering

google a movie called:

In Plane Site(DIVX511).avi

astounding evidence that September 11th was a conspiracy all along, very very good documentary

^^^ I for one would *not* dispute the fact that there are many things that just don't add up. But with regards to the Pentagon crash specifically, it would appear to be a plane. The extenuating circumstances surround it are not what I'm talking about in this thread.

Also kussie, your links to the photos are not an accurate comparison to this, because those planes crashed into the earth.

Don't know if anyone recalls in Holland in '92 a commercial plane also crashed into an apartment block:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w921004.htm

And not much was left of the plane either, well I can't find more photos of this particular accident anyhow. Sure the building was worst off than the Pentagon but it wasn't build to withstand the bomb blast.

Also the wreckage from the planes and the building would've combined which would make it very difficult for us none-air-plane-investivation expert to distinguise what's bits came from the plane which bits came from the building. Unless of course you see the part you recognise i.e. the wings, engine etc.

Google for plane hits building and you'll see plenty of example.


last edited by Opec at 16:11:21 31/Aug/04

I wasn't trying to debunk the fact that there is always aircraft debris, i was just answering his question about large plane accident in general.

If the planes store fuel in their wings, then why the hell did the nose of the plane explode?

I studied my maths and physics but I beleive this goes beyond phys2000 and math2500. So the whole "i'm a mathmagician" ... just ppftt, pull your head out!

People will never agree on what happened, and it doesn't matter either way - whats happened has happened, as a result USA has invaded/destroyed/liberated two countries (depends on who you are), and the Carlyle group has posted record profits... Its water under the bridge in the end - we'll (the human race) reap the consequences of our (read: USA's) actions in the years to come.

Hey guys, I lost my tin foil hat, I think I left it in this thread...

If the planes store fuel in their wings, then why the hell did the nose of the plane explode?

If the plane is travelling something like 650km/h [as a complete guess - probably going faster?], that's something in the order of 180m/s [I think my math is correct], then think about how long it took from the exact moment the nose hit to the moment the wings hit and explode.. Something along the lines of 0.1 of a second? (I dont know the length of a 747)
The nose didn't explode [or it shouldn't have], but it would sure look like it in real-time.

Some things don't add up entirely and it's fun to poke sticks at them, but stranger things have happened in physics/nature in history, and as such, you can't honestly believe this is a conspiracy/wasn't really the plane...
Some of the replies from people I thought were smarter/should know better are scary, I just comfort myself by reminding myself they're only poking fun at the holes in the physics and don't really believe it was a conspiracy/some unknown "thing".... I hope anyway =|

last edited by Loki at 16:36:55 31/Aug/04

loki shut the f*** up and go download that movie i said to look for

it explains it plain as day it couldn't possibly have been a plane that hit the pentagon

god you waffle some s*** without knowing any facts at all

A flight disappears, a building get's "flown" into, people died, families haven't seen people from the flight again, and you're saying it didn't happen... uhm, ok.

Also, I'm sorry, waffle on what? I answered someones question as to why the "nose" exploded (by saying it would have appeared to have done so given the speed that everything happened).

I have no problems poking sticks at the holes in the ideas for fun as much as anybody else [it's kinda like trying to solve a puzzle], but I dont believe it didn't actually happen.

I have not said anything I said was entirely correct, I gave a few ideas to think about how a car crumples when it hits a wall, and compare that to a plane and you might get an idea of what could have happened...

I'm sorry I offered some ideas and contributed to a thread.

I'm not going to continue this further after this post because it's you being the f***slap in this thread, not myself. So how about you f*** off and die before you abuse me again? alright?

last edited by Loki at 16:46:46 31/Aug/04

no how about you watch that f***ing video

it even adresses that there will be lamers such as yourself that will discredit anything they hear, and refuse to believe there is such thing as a conspiracy in the works

stick your head in the sand more you newbie

watch the f***ing vid, it collects all evidence and puts it in one place for you to see with your own eyes, nothing's been tampered with, and nothing has gone out of its way to convince you to believe anything

make up your own mind, if you watch that vid, then doublecheck your own evidence, and still tell me i'm full of s***, you lose

Einstein why don't you link us to this movie? I can't find it with the google. I really wanted to watch it. Also how big is the movie to download?.

The aircraft in that test was flying approximately 250 ft/s when it made first contact, but it slid approximately 1,200 ft before it stopped. Although the test aircraft was traveling at approximately one-third the speed of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon,

Na loki it was going faster about 750ft/s... :)

EDIT 180 meters = 590.551181 feet

last edited by GumbyNoTalent at 16:45:28 31/Aug/04

100mb ish

i hate google, and i will NOT go looking for it just so you tards can still stick your head in the sand and say you're right

it's called "In Plane Site"

i dont have the space or server access to host it, so you can go look for it yourselves if you really want some damning evidence about the whole debarcle

whoever wins...we lose

100mb ish

i hate google, and i will NOT go looking for it just so you tards can still stick your head in the sand and say you're right

it's called "In Plane Site"

i dont have the space or server access to host it, so you can go look for it yourselves if you really want some damning evidence about the whole debarcle

Is this the one?

http://www.policestate21.com/

Also seems that you have to buy it. Can you d/l this from P2P network or something?

Na loki it was going faster about 750ft/s... :)

EDIT 180 meters = 590.551181 feet

Ah well there you go, I dunno what that is in m/s but it sounds a fair bit quicker... either way.

it even adresses that there will be lamers such as yourself that will discredit anything they hear, and refuse to believe there is such thing as a conspiracy in the works

I could address how there are lamers like you who will believe anything they hear that it -IS- a conspiracy as well...

I could also go on about it's you who cannot understand that it's entirely possible given the forces involved that things just simply go so destroyed they werent recognisable etc.

I never said I was right on anything, it's a good thing others in this thread like Gumby understand what's going on.
It's just people offering ideas and some 'interesting/fun' discussion on their OWN theories/logic/ideas/beliefs (which is far more than you've offered), nothing more.

I have no evidence, I was not, and am not there to investigate the scene to collect such evidence.

How about you leave this thread now einstein? kthxbi


[edit] Oh, by the way, you haven't "offered" me anything for me to discredit except abuse, nice work there blinky.

last edited by Loki at 16:56:16 31/Aug/04

trotsky watched 'wag the dog' one too many times.

and this movie einy is talking about isn't directed by a bloke called moore is it? :P

the only thing staged around here is einsteins sex life.

the only good thing about this thread is that ti underlined the prescence of a few more retards.

sure people are dead and missing... like those people who were in the other plane that crashed into a field?

Ofcourse, the US Air Force didn't shoot it down, cause that'd be downright evil! And the USA is all about freedom and suppling spidz's mum with crack while she gives birth to brainless tossers like spidz....

pics or lying

Okay blah blah physics this and that but answer me this.

a) People on the plane died, they are dead. Their families noticed this I think so there is no denying that they're gone. I don't find any way to explain this, where did these people go? If they died in another plane crash somewhere else, don't you think someone would have noticed it? Plane crashes aren't exactly the most subtle things around.

Also, what the f*** is the motive for saying it was a plane when it wasn't? It seems like a s***load of effort to cover it up, but what's the motive?

Men never landed on the moon as well.

True it was staged by Stanley Kubrick using his set for 2001... ;)

i read through most of this thread until loki started saying that when cars hit walls theirs not much left.
all i can say is AS IF.

im sure the jet could have left a bit more wreckage other than just some scraps of an engine. even if it was travelling at 500kph+

s*** dosent just vanish.

a) People on the plane died, they are dead. Their families noticed this I think so there is no denying that they're gone. I don't find any way to explain this, where did these people go? If they died in another plane crash somewhere else, don't you think someone would have noticed it? Plane crashes aren't exactly the most subtle things around.

Well belive it or not according to some of these wacked hypothesis, they reckon that:

a) The plan was directed using a some high tech remote control

b) The whole thing was staged i.e. all the passengers were taken to a "secret" air field and transfer to a different plane, and get this, put into the Plane that *crashed* in the field in Pennslyvania to cover up!.

Frankly these hypothesis aren't even original, I mean there's a movie call Capricon 5 that's all of these moon hoax people based thier so called "consiracy theory" on.

a) The plan was directed using a some high tech remote control

b) The whole thing was staged i.e. all the passengers were taken to a "secret" air field and transfer to a different plane, and get this, put into the Plane that *crashed* in the field in Pennslyvania to cover up!.

Wow credible. Hopefully some of the retards in this thread can come up with something better.

Is this the one?

http://www.policestate21.com/

Also seems that you have to buy it. Can you d/l this from P2P network or something?

that's the one

s*** dosent just vanish.

Really? So when you burn paper, you're saying they don't turn to ash and vanished? Don't forget there was also an explosion and fire ball involved.

Actually matter cannot be destroyed just transfer into a different state, like heat,light and carbon (ash)... However that isn't totally true but we won't go there as 99.9% of matter obeys this rule. :)

If it was a conspiracy they probably crashed the planes into the atlantic, anyway, i just dont see how a f***ing 757 could have crashed into the pentagon with all the evidence against it.

In plane site is a thought provoking movie, full of witness testimonies such as firefighters saying there were bombs rigged in the towers, to passers by saying there were no windows on the planes etc. Hell at least it wasn't made by that Alex Jones dude, hes absolutly bonkers. I remember when he yelled out at a bush conference that europe is taking over the US and everyone laughed at him while he was being taken away in cuffs.

If it was a conspiracy they probably crashed the planes into the atlantic, anyway, i just dont see how a f***ing 757 could have crashed into the pentagon with all the evidence against it.

And no-one in ATC noticed this plane going right off course and then suddenly disappearing off the radar? Sorry, but it not being a plane is utterly impossible, it is too hard to fake. And no-one has mentioned a plausible motive yet.

To test out there new steel meshing...

And no-one has mentioned a plausible motive yet.

It was penguins.

Commence the ridiculous bulls*** from the right-wing propaganda machine in a vain attempt to prove my air tight arguement as false.

And no-one in ATC noticed this plane going right off course and then suddenly disappearing off the radar? Sorry, but it not being a plane is utterly impossible, it is too hard to fake. And no-one has mentioned a plausible motive yet.


And yet it managed to do excalty that didn't it, Why was nothing done when it changed course unexpectdly and/or disappeared off radar, with no radio contact?


Hhmmm as for a reason, Oil, money, Iraq, Afganistan. Any of this ring a bell?

last edited by kussie at 20:48:30 31/Aug/04

Actually matter cannot be destroyed just transfer into a different state, like heat,light and carbon (ash)... However that isn't totally true but we won't go there as 99.9% of matter obeys this rule. :)

correct me(because i honestly have no idea) if im wrong but isn't that what happends when they split an atom?

and how exactly did they work out who it was that hijacked the planes? and ofcourse only after they had worked it out, had alquida(sp?) confessed on a web page (the web being the most anonomous medium known to man.)

im going to bed now... spelling is getting way to bad :/

http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/science/thermal/heat_xfer.htm

Hopfully this will help.

All right, you wise-guy advanced physics types, you caught this one. True, energy can be created, by destroying matter. That is Albert Einstein's principle contribution to science. E=mc² means that tiny amounts of matter can be converted to enormous amounts of heat, as in thermonuclear fission (Nuke plants and atomic bombs) But in all non-nuclear reactions and systems, a trivial amount of matter is destroyed and the total quantity of energy, for all practical purposes, is constant.

thats why 99.9% of the time... :)

last edited by GumbyNoTalent at 21:05:23 31/Aug/04

And yet it managed to do excalty that didn't it, Why was nothing done when it changed course unexpectdly and/or disappeared off radar, with no radio contact?

Heard the tapes of ATC when the planes were hijacked that were flown into the WTC? It was a f***up, and I imagine that the pentagon would be much the same. What are they supposed to do when they realise the planes are off course? Hit the self destruct button?

Hhmmm as for a reason, Oil, money, Iraq, Afganistan. Any of this ring a bell?

What does saying it is a plane rather than a missle have to do with any of that? Are you insinuating that the USA fired a missle into the pentagon and then claimed it was a plane, moments after two planes flew into the WTC?

Man, since when did all these special schools get net access?

last edited by fpot at 21:11:01 31/Aug/04

and how exactly did they work out who it was that hijacked the planes? and ofcourse only after they had worked it out, had alquida(sp?) confessed on a web page (the web being the most anonomous medium known to man.)

There were like 4 arabs on each flight. Pretty easy to spot the Mohameds. Also because it was early morning some flights had only ~50 people on them. Its not exactly rocket science.

that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes

That sounds like bulls***. What a coincidence that they had just finished that part of the building.

so, in other words, they said they'd just finished renovations, and we know they were doing renovations, and you're saying "bulls***, they didn't just refit that section"

just because there isn't an immediately obvious motive to us, doesn't mean there isn't one

Umm you read the passanger itenery(s) it has none or not all of the people who were suspected of the hijacking on the list. Yet according to what the government stated they all used passports and credit cards with thier actual names on it?.

I also suggest reading my posts agian i never said or agreed that it was a missle or not a plane. What i said was it wasn't a 757 maybe a smaller plane like a lear jet or something, and even then it was only speculation based on what i have seen.

And that claim you made about the government or whatever, it could be true. But we will not find out, all we can do is speculate based on evidence of what we have seen, which i am doing.

A lack of evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy theory.

just because there isn't an immediately obvious motive to us, doesn't mean there isn't one

Stretch your imagine to it's wildest reaches and try and come up with one. You can't can you?

Seriously, I actually can't believe that people are buying this s***. I guess it will be easier now to pick which posts to ignore, those posts being anyone who has posted in this thread and actually sees credence in this actually being a real conspiricy.

No-one has given a valid explantion into what physically became of the passengers, who are missing, and no-one has even given half a reason as to why there would be any point in faking this in the first place.

last edited by fpot at 21:24:42 31/Aug/04

hint into faking this, hhhmm how about the war, oil, money, etc. They are all valid theories. And if you believe everything you see on the news you are a f*ckwit.

You forget the US is very good at making people "disappear".

And like i said above, All we can do is speculate on evidence we have seen and not seen. Come to our own conclusions based on that. No amount of evidence will debunk what people think. So in brief FFS come to oyur own damn conclusion and stop trying to get everyone to agree with you. That was NOT aimed at a particular person but everyone.

so basically fpot, you're saying if you can't see something it doesn't exist? and because we don't agree with your on this one particular topic, all our opinons on any other subject hereafter are ignored and invalid?

there is a whole world out there that you and I know nothing about, actions and events take place that you and I have no knowledge of and couldn't comprehend motives if we did.

I never agreed that it was a missile, but I'm highly doubtful it was a plane that crashed into the pentagon.

last edited by WetWired at 21:30:49 31/Aug/04

Ok i just watched it, i love the eye witness reports.

A plane at 530mph (i think it said), 30 metres above the ground. Funny i don't think you'll get a good look at it. All over the place. Yet the people who had video footage (they said they kept rewatching it) never mentioned that the plane looked odd (besides the whole hitting the pentagon thing). I'll take the third umpire thanks all the same.

I am saying when something doesn't make any sense and multiple things don't gel together, like this, it is usually bulls***.

When I first started hearing about this (ages ago) I actually thought hey cool it might be true. Then the facts started hitting me, about how passengers died, people saw it happen and all the other s*** posted in this thread and my good friend commonsense kicked in.

I guess we'll just have to wait til oliver stone makes a movie about it starring kevin costner to find the final truth

And like i said above, All we can do is speculate on evidence we have seen and not seen.

I repeat, a lack of evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy theory.

Yet you look at the real evidence and its pretty obvious that the official story is true, even if you take the obscure things.

#1 The lack of external damage to the building, how is that evidence of a missile? A missile would blow the s*** through the side of a building, yet a building can survive the impact of an aircraft even at full stick (excepting burning fuel). Steel and concrete have some of the highest tensile and compressive strengths (respectively) of any material.
#2 The perfect fuselage shaped hole would indicate that the plane hit the building first, which is the official story. Just like crushing an egg, or attempting to compress a cylinder length-wise, the fuselage would resist even such an enourmous impact until an additional force is applied from another angle (possibly the wings tearing off).
#3 Lack of recognisable debris. So the fuselage survived far enough to punch the hole, then the wings hit. The plane hit at something like a 60 degree angle to external face of the building, which means one of the wings would hit before the other providing that additional force i was talking about. Plane is now a ~800 km/h hollow piece of metal again.

The video is s***, even i can debunk it with nothing more than the video itself.

Sure Plane can't made that kind of damange to the building. Hey wasn't that what they say about the piece of form couldn't make a hole in the a reinfored carbon-carbon panel of the Space Craft wing too?

Unpossible, even NASA experts reckoned but eventually they were proved wrong much to thier surprised.

But hey I'm probably wrong, it was probably struck down by a Soviet missile or some other "insert your favorite conspiracy theory here".

I guess what when it comes to a real world, Physics sometimes s*** is just wacked and some people just finding it hard to accept.

Everbody knows it was some kid drifting in his skyline, and lost control, slamming into the side of the pentagon when his nos tank exploded...

Yeah Gumby but has the car been rigged to explode on impact by some type of super-high-tech-top-secret-OMFG-bomb? And how would it get through without survilleance footage?!@@@

Comon Opec everybody knows that rice cars are super fast, no video camera can capture the full awesome power of the Skyline in full flight.

Why was that type of music being played in the flash? Sounds like it's trying to make people freaked out.

Also, what did happen to the plane then? If it did crash elsewhere, it would have been seen, and hundreds of emergency workers would have been called to the crash site.

You people are concentrating on the size of the hole too much, and not asking any other questions. Please don't become detectives.

last edited by 290 at 06:52:04 01/Sep/04

Really? So when you burn paper, you're saying they don't turn to ash and vanished? Don't forget there was also an explosion and fire ball involved.

Just to let you know, these planes arent made of paper.

On that site they arent saying it ISNT a plane, they are saying that it isnt the plane the media and government has said it was.

Uhm, why would you fake something like this? Wouldn't it just be easier to you know, actually really crash a plane into a building, rather than trying to make something that resembles a 757 fly into three different buildings? And then try to explain to the public why the crash site didn't look like a 757 was ever there...
No, actually I'm thinking it would be easier to just take a real 757 and crash it into a building.

Also, that movie's witnesses sound real credible. OMG THE PLANE DIDNT HAVE WINDOWS.

You'd have to be pretty stupid to create something to resemble and fool people into thinking it's a 757... and then forget to put the detail of the windows in.

Hundreds if not Thousands of people saw this happen, maybe even tens of thousands if you count the second WTC plane as it was all being aired live IIRC... Pretty good and rather extensive and elaborate conspiracy to pull the covers over so many people's eyes in real time, or maybe it just really happened.

As for the pentagon plane a lear jet? We've seen what the plane looked like that hit the pentagon, seemed like a pretty big airliner to me.
It's not something the government could just pay [or threaten] everyone to keep shut about or keep it internally, who witnessed the event is undoubtably an uncontrollable variable... just kinda messes up the entire idea of trying to piece a conspiracy together with such a large, important, uncontrollable variable if you ask me.

Interestingly, according to "one conspiracy theory" there's an OMFGUNEXPLAINABLE pyramid shape in the middle of the fuselage/underbelly in this picture and it's been analysed by 49829034890234 different "experts" and claim its unexplainable.


Funnily enough, I must be the worlds best photography expert then, because it looks like a shadow from the right engine to me. And judging by the luminoscity of the plane (the right side being far more lit up and in direct sun) and the angle the shadow is cast over the tail of the fuselage, I'd say I'm correct!

PPS - sure looks like a 757/airliner to me.

More interstings stuffz:




[edit]Changed images to my own webspace after reading the boo-hoo whinge thread.

last edited by Loki at 09:23:28 01/Sep/04

last edited by Loki at 09:26:06 01/Sep/04

Just to let you know, these planes arent made of paper.

heh Astroboy you really are trying pretty hard to troll me aren't you?. :)

Seriously man, if you can't comprehend that I was inferring that *principally*, matter can appear to be vanished, destroyed and turned into unregonisedable form, given the right circumstances, then please leave this conversation now -- obviously elementary physics is just not your thing.

But I think you're just trolling me so.

Also, that movie's witnesses sound real credible. OMG THE PLANE DIDNT HAVE WINDOWS.
...
Interestingly, according to "one conspiracy theory" there's an OMFGUNEXPLAINABLE pyramid shape in the middle of the fuselage/underbelly in this picture and it's been analysed by 49829034890234 different "experts" and claim its unexplainable.

heh that also amuse me. Like yeah they didn't even consider the alternate, wacked out, possibility that the terrorist actually demanded that the passengers *keep* their windows blind shut! OMG! how would that be possible?#! But no, the plane without windows is far more plausible. :)

And lets not forget the plane travelled pretty fast, most of the cameras that captured the footage, and indeed the very same ones used by these tin-foiled loving exports, are't exactly the ones they used in the Olympics. It isn't specifically built to capture fast moving objects and can be slowed down etc of couse it's all blurry as s*** because:
a) The plane is moving fast (duh)
b) Taken from a far, most from hand held cameras and from the journo's choppers.

Pity we don't have one of those hollywood type "photo enchancer" where they seemed to be able clearly enchanced any photos close up no matter how crap the source photos are....

Even when factual evindence is placed in front of Western sloth victims, they still are too stubborn to beleive.
Sad really.
But , but I REALLY NEED MY PDA< MY MDA< MY MS PC< MY MY MY, MR MATEY AND MY, LOLLIES AND AND< MY GREAT JOB!!!! AND MY GREAT CAR!!! ITS A MEASURE OF SUCCESS MAEN!!!?


last edited by slap69 at 09:59:56 01/Sep/04

Pity we don't have one of those hollywood type "photo enchancer" where they seemed to be able clearly enchanced any photos close up no matter how crap the source photos are....

Enchance........ Enhance..... Enhance!!

haha =)

heh Astroboy you really are trying pretty hard to troll me aren't you?. :)

your just trolling yourself by responding.

Very true.

Yes lack of evidence can help prove parts of theories. How did some manage to fly a plane at 500MPH 20ft off the ground, the supposed pilots that the US said they were according to the flight school said they were clueless and never make it as pilots, And yet they managed to fly a 757 20ft off the ground at 500MPH, that would take some skill to pull off.

But how is that the nose can punch a hole in the C ring and then totally disappear? Whilst the rest of the plane apprantly vaporised upon hitting the wall?

The explosions between the pentagon and the WTC are very inconstant. The explosion at WTC was hot enough to fatigue the steel and ultimatly lead to the collapse. Where as at the pentagon the photos show little to no smoke and fire damage, look close you can see an open book on a stool with out the pages being burnt at all.

According to expert testimoney by aircraft officals the amount of fuel that would have been left on board, the explosion would have reduced that section to rubble and burn for days.

The secruity camer showing the explosion why does it have the date of Sept 12, 2001 on it as opposed to Sept 11?

last edited by kussie at 12:22:05 01/Sep/04

last edited by kussie at 12:26:06 01/Sep/04

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the wings could be torn off so spontaneously that they made no mark on each side of the hole. Wings are pretty heavy (especially considering the fuel tanks and flight engines). Heavy enough that they maintain enough momentum to continue travelling a single direction despite the status of the body of the craft and make a mark on the exterior wall on either side at least.

I've just watched that in Plane Site movie it too raises good questions. Like some of the facts i said above.

can someone point me to the remains of the planes that hit the WTC?

I mean I don't see no wing damage or a big f***ing tail wing sitting at ground zero so I guess nothing hit them hey????

GWB must have just fired a missile at them so he could invade afganistan and iraq!

Why do you fight alternate event depictions for the sake of it? You don't know what happenned. The chances of that flash video being real are equal to those portrayed in main stream news, minus the (in)famous sounds brands and logos that lead to the likes of you believing blindly that it's the truth end of story.

spidz, you could clearly see the damage the wings of the planes did to the WTC, yet there's no such damage at the pentagon? the damage in confined to an area smaller than that of the plane

because I'm not intellectually challenged with retarded conspiracy theories.

It's more then a thoery, it's challanging the offical story, and there is some very good evidence, If you watch that plane site movie it shows plane wreckage from the WTC attacks yet there was none at the pentagon?

Also at the WTC why is there a massive plume of smoke coming from the WTC area, whilst the two towers are still standing, the footage was shown once live but never agian, it's on the video. It raises some very good points for people to make up there own minds

last edited by kussie at 12:40:50 01/Sep/04

Wetwired, the planes that hit the WTC hit a big f***ing glass window.

the plane that hit the pentagon, hit solid concrete designed specifically to withstand attack.

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the original design of the pentagon to strengthen it against various forms of attack?

maybe the architect that designed the pentagon fired the alleged missile to vindicate his design nouse!

Erm since when was the WTC made entirly of glass, there is steel, concrete and glass all used. The WTC was also designed to survive a hit by a 707, which would at least mean it was slightly reinforce, and the WTC did survive the initial impact. What lead to the collapse of the tower was the resulting fire from the explosion.

Where as at the pentagon there is hardly little smoke or fire damage. With a lot of the smoke coming from construction vehicles parked in front of the pentagon.

The secruity camera footage from the pentagon shows something heading for the pentagon just very small, whilst a 757 is over 44feet in height.

I usggest watching the Plane Site movie

last edited by kussie at 12:44:51 01/Sep/04

Wetwired, the planes that hit the WTC hit a big f***ing glass window.

the plane that hit the pentagon, hit solid concrete designed specifically to withstand attack.

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the original design of the pentagon to strengthen it against various forms of attack?

Seconded.

and what's in between those glass windows? big f*** arse steel pillars.

Fair enough if the pentagon can withstand an attack like that, but the damage is clearly confined and almost non existing in areas where the wings should have damaged them at least to some degree

Erm since when was the WTC made entirly of glass, there is steel, concrete and glass all used. The WTC was also designed to survive a hit by a 707

Where'd you get that from?

Pointless comparing the two instances of damage, and only makes you retards look even more special. They are two completely different structures designed completely differently.

because I'm not intellectually challenged with retarded conspiracy theories.

Spidz, what you just said is virtually putting your foot in your mouth. Blindly believing one source without actually knowing first hand as opposed to gaining info through reliable multiple sources is the true definition of being "mentally challenged". You imp. Way to own yourself suit boy.

last edited by slap69 at 12:50:57 01/Sep/04

The explosion at WTC was hot enough to fatigue the steel and ultimatly lead to the collapse. Where as at the pentagon the photos show little to no smoke abd fire damage, look close you can see an open book on a stool with out the pages being burnt at all.

when the plane hit the WTC it would have cut right through the relativly weak columns, or "outer shell" of the building and straight through into the center. the explosion pushed out the windows of the other side of the building.

the heat then weakend the steel strength and it distorted eventualy leading to its collaps.

the diffrences :

the WTC is made of steal which weakens in intense heat.
the pentagon is made of kevlar and concreate. kevlar is resistante to penitration. and concrete doesn't weaken in extream heat (well... less so than steal) hence its more likely that the majority of the explosion happend outside the building and the fire damage was probably more from the heat escapeing into the puncture wounds. hence being a cooler fire and less structual damage.

in the flash animation it shows that some of the windows where still intact after the inital explosion. this is most likely because the pressure on the windows was from the fireball, not the blast (which the kevlar-concrete would have absorbed most of). ofcourse the fireball should have been enough to shatter normal glass, however this glass was actually bullet proof.

all above facts are true AFAIK.

the plane that hit the pentagon, hit solid concrete designed specifically to withstand attack.

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the original design of the pentagon to strengthen it against various forms of attack?

You're probably right, but the thought of an incredibly heavy, reasonably solid object barelling into a mostly brick/mortar wall at barely sub-sonic speeds seems more like the Mack truck in Loki's analogy than the car.

Not really, when they were designing the WTC it was built to survive an impact by a 707. How evere developers failed to take into account the jet fuel, which is what was the main factor of the WTC collapse.

Erm the undamged fact in the penttagon is a very valid point, it is right in plain site right were the fire and smoke damage would have been caused.

You've still failed to take into acoc*** what happened to the jet fuel at the pentagon? Why does the secruity fottage from the DOD show an object half the height of a 757? Why was there no damage done to the roof of the outshell by the tail? Why is the secruity camera footage labelled at September 12, 2001?

last edited by kussie at 12:55:26 01/Sep/04

Not really, when they were designing the WTC it was built to survive an impact by a 707. How evere developers failed to take into account the jet fuel, which is what was the main factor of the WTC collapse.

As I asked before, where did you get "was DESIGNED to receive an impact from a 707" from? I am not saying you are lying, just wanting to see something other than your word.

And are you saying that the pentagon and WTC are "not really" different structures built completely differently? Because quite obviously they are. One an office skyscraper, and the other a hardened military stronghold.

You've still failed to take into acoc*** what happened to the jet fuel at the pentagon?

You've still failed to take into account the numerous dead passengers who died when the plane hit the pentagon, and what became of them.

That question has to be answered first before any of your or anyone elses' circumstantial bulls*** does.

the 707 fact was from a documentary that was on TV ages ago about what caused the WTC to collapse, can't remember the exact name of it though, I believe it was on channel 7

and as for the passengers, they could be anywhere, dead, crashed into the ocean, executed? who knows? just because we don't know doesn't refute the fact that something is amiss with the physical evidence of the pentagon attack

and as for the passengers, they could be anywhere, dead, crashed into the ocean, executed? who knows?

And that is why no matter what you say, your argument is bulls***.

Office building would have many flamable things inside it too, paper, wood desks, chairs etc. etc.
Sure pentagon was an office too, but wasn't that section being rebuilt? So I'd assume it'd be fairly defunct of most of those things to catch fire and burn longer/spread the fire.

Spidz, what you just said is virtually putting your foot in your mouth. Blindly believing one source without actually knowing first hand as opposed to gaining info through reliable multiple sources is the true definition of being "mentally challenged". You imp. Way to own yourself suit boy.

I for one take the fact that there were several hundred eye witnesses, numerous deaths and a missing plane as reliable sources. Especially since 2 other planes hit american landmarks that day. This isn't a movie set, governments can't just fake s*** like this and get away with it, helly little jonny can't even claim that children were thrown off a boat without someone questioning it, I doubt you could blow up the pentagon without someone spilling the beans.

This theory is so retarded even Mike Moore hasn't made a movie about it.

but then again I don't have tin foil lining in my roof.

They could easily have been "disappeared" something the US Government is very good at.

http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/pentagon_attack_hole_290.jpg
http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/pentagon_debris_130901.jpg
http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/pentagon.jpg
http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/pentagon_debris_130901.jpg

Where is the damage that would have been done to the roof of the pentagon by the tail?


http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/pentagon_attack_hole_290.jpg
http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/x_010914-F-8006R-003.jpg

In reality a 757 with that much fuel would have created a lot more smoke and fire damage.

http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/wtrade-pentagon.jpg

Notice the undamged desk and stool with an open book on it?





last edited by kussie at 13:07:00 01/Sep/04

They could easily have been "disappeared" something the US Government is very good at.

haha I think you have been watching too many movies.

In reality

This is reality.
People died.
It's not a tv show.

Where is the damage that would have been done to the roof of the pentagon by the tail?

Looks like the roof collapsed to me, that's enough damage.
Think about how much explosive it takes to level a building (and even then it pretty much just collapses on itself to do the rest of the work), they use a metric assload to do it.
This is a re-inforced building, that's a s***load of damage to that building given its structural integrity and design if you ask me.

last edited by Loki at 13:08:56 01/Sep/04

Notice the undamged desk and stool with an open book on it?

Wow s*** you're right it wasn't a plane!

Then where is the large amount of fire and smoke damage that would have been caused by the explosion and resulting fire?

Well I think regardless of whether there was furniture of whatever in the buliding, the whole place would be coated in plane fuel and would be scorched to f***ery. Which I clearly don't see in those photos.

And as for your your arguement fpot, you don't have one, the point I raised has to do with the physical evidence at the crash scene, not the disappearance of the passengers, if something like this was purposely faked as a plane crash, I'm sure those passengers were "dealt with" in some way or another. If I had a clear and truthful evidence to where they were, do you think I'd be arguing with you over some forum about it?

Something just isn't right about the pentagon attack, and I've felt that way since the beginning.

who the f*** knows when those pictures were taken?

and I don't understand what you mean by the tail of the plane damaging the roof?

the roof has caved in, there is no roof!

clearly the plane was solar powered, god you guys are dumb !@@#!!!!!oneone1111!

Well I think regardless of whether there was furniture of whatever in the buliding, the whole place would be coated in plane fuel and would be scorched to f***ery. Which I clearly don't see in those photos.

That is excalty what i'm saying.



Spidz that is the top of the roof which would have been damaged by the planes tail, and yet it looks pretty much intact. The roof didn't collapse till 20mins after the impact.

haha I think you have been watching too many movies.

Can't remember if it was Reagan or Bush Snr that asked his staff head apon entering the White House 'where is the war room, can I see it' as he had seen Dr Strangelove, of course there is no such room.

And as for your your arguement fpot, you don't have one, the point I raised has to do with the physical evidence at the crash scene, not the disappearance of the passengers, if something like this was purposely faked as a plane crash, I'm sure those passengers were "dealt with" in some way or another. If I had a clear and truthful evidence to where they were, do you think I'd be arguing with you over some forum about it?

You do realise that sometimes events involving plane crashes and the like sometimes play themselves out differently to then how a computer model would, which is how you seem to be looking at it.

Physical evidence in this case really doesn't mean a whole lot because of what is weighted against it, and that is all the things I have mentioned and what spidz basically summarised in his last post (post #151). It is really making me laugh how you think the passengers were 'dealt' with because that is purely you ignoring the crux of us sane people's arguments by suggesting some sort of bulls*** conspiricy theory that simply doesn't work.

I don't care how many movies you've seen or games you've played, you simply cannot make a planeload of people disappear by murdering them and not leave an evidence trail of some kind. Too many people were watching from the people in the ATC towers, to the people on the ground watching planes falling out of the sky.

What I think is you get some sort of entertainment out of this idea and it excites you or something and you don't want to let it go, because you are ignoring crucial elements that any sort of semi-intelligent person should realise to entertain your deluded fantasies over the 160 posts in this thread. It's really f***ing stupid and ridiculous.

last edited by fpot at 13:18:16 01/Sep/04

And if you beleieve absolutly everything you see and not ask any questions it is you who is deluded and idiotic.

The point is there are a lot of pieces of evidence that conflict what we have been told if you look carefully enough.

the way I see it fpot is you're doing the exactly the same to me, just on the opposite end, ignoring certain evidence because other evidence "makes it ok"

Reinforced concrete/Brick Vs. Thin [Comparitevely] Metal tail
HRMMMMMM
Anybody else see the problem here?

last edited by Loki at 13:20:34 01/Sep/04

But how is that the nose can punch a hole in the C ring and then totally disappear? Whilst the rest of the plane apprantly vaporised upon hitting the wall?

I think the word "vaporised" has been used far to liberally and incorrecly in this thread. I'm not suggesting much of the plan is "vaporised" or "vanished", I'm simply suggesting that ther were *smashed*, *shredded* into billion, unregonisabled parts upon impact.

All of these bits and pieces are mixed up into the building bits and pieces making it very difficult to identify for us average joe, and lack of photograhps definitely doesn't help -- I will concede on this one, it is rather strange that there aren't more photos available.

Of course part of the plane may have "vaporised" due to the explosion and fire.

The explosions between the pentagon and the WTC are very inconstant. The explosion at WTC was hot enough to fatigue the steel and ultimatly lead to the collapse. Where as at the pentagon the photos show little to no smoke and fire damage, look close you can see an open book on a stool with out the pages being burnt at all.

Yes weaken the *steel* but not rock and concrete. Steel can be weaken easily wih enough heat, it'll take a hell of a lot more to weaken reinforced concrete.

I think people are forgetting that rock on average, has a much, much higher melting point than steel and guess what, the Pentagon is built with *mostly* stone and concrete. Plus the Pentagon is reinforced like you wouldn't belive.

Part of the Pentagon *did* collaspe and the fire and heat damange was so great that a large chunk of it needed to be repair.

The reason WTC collasped was simple, they can't put out the fire - period. Had the fireman be able to get to it, it might be standing today -- may be. It was unfortunate that fire suppresion is completely useless in case because of the hight where the plane hit.

spidz, you could clearly see the damage the wings of the planes did to the WTC, yet there's no such damage at the pentagon? the damage in confined to an area smaller than that of the plane

For starter the WTC and the Pentagon are build very differently. So naturally the amount of the initial destruction of the WTC appear to be greater than of the Pentagon. If you have a look at what they have to repair in the end, the damaged area is f***ing huge.

Sky scrappers such as WTC are not build to *with stand* such an ennormous damage to its structure (not I’m not talking about the impact I’m talking about structural damage) where as the Pentagon is. Why do you think the Pentagon is only a few stories high but it's very large horizontally?.

Smoke? Well that’s easy to explain, WTC was a fully occupied office building which means it’s full of papers. That part of the Pentagon was newly renovated, one can only assumed very few people are in them so less paper.

Also we’re back to the fact that in WTC NO fire suppressions were operational or cuts out after a while because of the height of the building AND the fire crew CANNOT get fire suppression material to it. So it has more time to burn more material to produce more smoke. Yes I am speculating but even you people would see this theory is far more plausible than the conspiracy theory? But then I’ve probably been brain washed by the media.

And if you beleieve absolutly everything you see and not ask any questions it is you who is deluded and idiotic.

Yeh I am so naive to not believe that the US secretly killed a planeload of people and then fired a missle or flew a smaller plane into the pentagon moments after terrorists (OR MAYBE THAT WAS THE U.S TOO??!!?) flew two planes into the WTC making them collapse.

You. Are. A. Moron.

Yes it wouldn't do much damage but it would do SOME damage, as opposed to leving it untouched.

And the secruity camer from the Pentagon shows something hitting the pentagon, but it is half the height of an actual 757 so it could very well be anything, and to fly 20ft off the ground at 500mph requires some very skilled pilots, which the hijackers weren't

the way I see it fpot is you're doing the exactly the same to me, just on the opposite end, ignoring certain evidence because other evidence "makes it ok"

Because other evidence plus commonsense PROVES IT DIDN'T f***ING HAPPEN AND MAKES THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE VOID.

Do you understand yet?

you're ignoring evidence and we're ignoring a retarded theory based on anti-govt sentiment.

all the evidence we have is backed up by eye witness, undeniable motive and countless other sane arguments.

the theory you put forward is exactly that, a theory. It has so reasonable evidence to support it. It really is dillusional to even suggest that the US govt shot a missile at the pentagon, and I'm really starting to fell like I'm being expertly trolled because I fail to accept that there are people out there that lack even the most basic intelligence.

And thats excalty the same with our evidence, there is eye witness accounts that agree with the other theories as well.

And the secruity camer from the Pentagon shows something hitting the pentagon, but it is half the height of an actual 757 so it could very well be anything, and to fly 20ft off the ground at 500mph requires some very skilled pilots, which the hijackers weren't

How do you know which angle the plane was coming in? The camera *did* not have a full view of the explosion only partial view.

Now if we have a reverse angle of the view then you can tell the angle which the plan was coming in.

And please don't say that you could see the bloody plane in the bottom right hand corner in the vid, that's a joke it's so small and blurry that you can even see a rabbit in the vid than a plane.

The explosion seems pretty large to me, look at the size of the pentagon doode, it's f***ing huge.

and I'm really starting to fell like I'm being expertly trolled because I fail to accept that there are people out there that lack even the most basic intelligence.

Arrrr, you have much to learn young grasshopper, you need to troll them in return ;)

But compare that explosion to that of the WTC. But you can still see the object the angle isn't great but it is still at least only half the size of a 757.

But i've had enough of the stupidity in this thread. I've made my decesion and it won't be changed, thats all i will. If you believe everything you see on the news you are a fool.

Out -

so because we don't agree with you, we're insane, stupid and deluded? s***, this debate is over!, I may as well give up

I'm tellin you it was some riced up Skyline drifting, and the NOS tank exploded... :)

^ I Roffled greatly at the above post.
Not only does he make his argument seem like he ligetimately beleives this conspiracy theory, I feel my trolling with spidz, opec and fpot may have contributed to his frustration.

[edit] dammit people are spamming this thread fast, referring to Kussie's post 3 or so above mine.

last edited by Loki at 13:31:25 01/Sep/04

First of wet wired i was agreeing with you.

And i was referring ot news over all mediums not just in relation to this. It is fact that news articles are one sided and bias.

If you believe everything you see on the news you are a fool.

But if you believe everything you see in a dodgy flash animation and a few pictures you're a goddamn f***ing genius.

there is eye witness accounts that agree with the other theories as well.

I'm sorry, but can you point me to the eyewitness accounts that a missile hit the pentagon? Are there also eyewitnesses to the execution of the 'dissappeared passengers' (lol).

Or did Arnie just come and erase them?

like I said earlier, clearly the plane was solar powered, hence a lack of fuel explosions.

so because we don't agree with you reason, we're insane, stupid and deluded? s***, this debate is over!, I may as well give up

Yeh pretty much.

I'm tellin you it was some riced up Skyline drifting, and the NOS tank exploded... :)

I laughed at that too actually =)

NAAAAAAAWWWWWS

They are the same people they use when they do a UFO sighting story.

But if you believe everything you see in a dodgy flash animation and a few pictures you're a goddamn f***ing genius.

hahahhahah, somebody call MENSA!!

FFS spidz read my posts i never said it was a missle, i suggested that it may have been a smaller plane but it was only suggested.

I've been of this decesion well before i saw the flash movie.

My belief came from my question of the facts and several inconsistent between what we have been told and what the evidence shows.




last edited by kussie at 13:35:17 01/Sep/04

last edited by kussie at 13:36:14 01/Sep/04

that wasn't directed at you kussie, that was directed at fpot and others who like to get worked up and resort to abusing people because they don't agree

ok trade the word 'missile' for 'unidentified smaller plane' in my previous posts.

capiche? you're still a moron.


maybe it was the first attack from the aliens we saw in independence day, lucky we had the MIB to cover it up for us.

unfortunately you guys had your eyes closed when Will smith flashed the memory eraser thingy.

But compare that explosion to that of the WTC. But you can still see the object the angle isn't great but it is still at least only half the size of a 757.

How on earth did you make that measurement? I'm not even sure which angle the plan came in from that vid?

But i've had enough of the stupidity in this thread. I've made my decesion and it won't be changed, thats all i will. If you believe everything you see on the news you are a fool.

I think you're a fool for assuming that I haven't watched and considered in detailed about your so-called conspiracy theory. I have seen it that's why I feel compels to point out such stupid errors and twisted assumptions and facts.

I’ve also seen other out of this world conspiracy like the Moon hoax. Some people still believed that this is actually true despite the facts and hard science behind it.

It’s your right to make your decision but don’t be assuming that just because people believed in a conventional science, common sense and media would automatically make them a sheep and a fool. You’re just as guilty of this as us for having so much faith in such an implausible scenario.

rofl the "757" in that vid is probably just the wing of the plane, cause that's all it looks like to me. A long thin silver thingy, probably.. ZOMG A WING.

Also if you watch it, it takes something like 0.2 seconds from the first frame to the explosion, inbetween all you see is one hell of a giant blur.

People who make there judgements based entirly off what they see on the news are fools. People who question the evidence and either agree or disagree are more educated, at least they came to thier own conclusions regardless of what they believe. This is not aimed at anyone but people in general, it's just something i believe.

I wasn't trying to sway people just showing things that i thought were irregular with what we told, thats all.

yeah the blur was the MIB coming to the rescue loki.

rofl the "757" in that vid is probably just the wing of the plane, cause that's all it looks like to me. A long thin silver thingy, probably.. ZOMG A WING.

But surely Loki, you've been able to enchance it and in process able to identify its flight path?!

Also if you watch it, it takes something like 0.2 seconds from the first frame to the explosion, inbetween all you see is one hell of a giant blur.

That's because it's a survillence camera, it took vid only 5 frames a second.

People who make there judgements based entirly off what they see on the news are fools. People who question the evidence and either agree or disagree are more educated, at least they came to thier own conclusions regardless of what they believe. This is not aimed at anyone but people in general, it's just something i believe.

Hey I agree. I've seen everything you've seen, and read everything you've read that is relevant about this, but for some reason, I see nothing that requires questioning and answering. Maybe I am just not so caught up in the hype.

And I only watch the news (of the TV variety) for the sport :P

I think Kussie is Ray Martin, or is it Simon Crean?

People who make there judgements based entirly off what they see on the news are fools. People who question the evidence and either agree or disagree are more educated, at least they came to thier own conclusions regardless of what they believe.

Well in that case then have you consider what we've presented against the evidenced you've seen?

From what I've seen of the evidence in these vids etc they are so weak and at least cluchting at a very weak straws that even Fox Molder wouldn't belive it.

Yes Opec i have considered it and respected your opinion and not held agianist you, same for anyone else.

Wow spidz you've resorted to to stupid comments and name calling. You must feel real special.

http://www.kreative-studios.com/random/kent.gif
"i've said it once and i'll say it again. democracy simply doesnt work."

last edited by kussie at 13:47:26 01/Sep/04

last edited by kussie at 13:47:37 01/Sep/04

People who make there judgements based entirly off what they see on the news are fools. People who question the evidence and either agree or disagree are more educated, at least they came to thier own conclusions regardless of what they believe. This is not aimed at anyone but people in general, it's just something i believe.

Ok leaving the trolling stick behind for awhile, Re-read what Opec said.
We've questioned your theory and it doesn't add up.

You seem to be stuck on the idea [or so it seems] that the plane should have done more damage to the pentagon.

Take a household brick and throw it at your concrete driveway - The crete survives virtually unscathed.

That brick on a larger scale [i.e. throw a brick the size and weight of a 757 at the pentagon] probably represents an object far far stronger than a plane.

That's because it's a survillence camera, it took vid only 5 frames a second.

Yah, that's my point =)

last edited by Loki at 13:51:12 01/Sep/04

every post you've made in this thread has been stupid, you made me feel special by default.

Yes Loki that may well be true. But like i said ther eis still a lot of unanswered questions, and things that don't ad dup. But on the other hand there is also thing that the other have stated that are true. It's a thing that no matter what one said say in the end it comes down to personal opinions and thoughts.

Sure spidz it may stupid to you, but like i said above it comes down to personal opinion and thoughts. And no matter what you say you won't sway my beliefs, you (not trying to be harsh or flame) are a prime example of things wrong with some people these days. When people present things that differ with your thoughts your immedaite response is to flame and call them names.

last edited by kussie at 13:52:33 01/Sep/04

But like i said ther eis still a lot of unanswered questions, and things that don't ad dup.

only on the conspiracy theory side of the argument.

over here in reality everything adds up perfectly, what are these questions you speak off?

Some things are curious, sure.
But not curious enough to stop and say "hold on, that doesn't add up".

The wings are like twigs compared to that building, if you look at the wingsweep of a 757 you'll also notice that they would/could have clipped the building very close to the main body of the plane, and then folded backwards - hence no significant damage further out from the main hole.

When people present things that differ with your thoughts your immedaite response is to flame and call them names.

no that wasn't my immediate response at all. First I deconstructed the argument until it was left in tatters, then when people fail to accept reality I point and laugh.

I haven't let my thoughts really enter the equation here, but rather cold hard facts and evidence that refute everything you say. My thoughts are unimportant in an argument that is not subjective at all.

I'm sorry for being insensitive, but I just find it very amusing and a tad sad.

Yeah the wings may have done that, but how did the nose which is made of the same material manage to penerate 3 hole rings where as the rest of the aircraft disappeared upon initial impact? Why is there so little smoke and fire damage? How did the so called hijackers manage to fly a plane 20ft off the ground at 757, after the flying school called the apprant hijackers clueless and said they would never make it as pilots? Why didn't they release the video fottage from the sheraton, the gas station and transit authority? Why were the the secruity camera footage we did first released and the date read Septemeber 12, 2001?

Just a few of my unanswered questions that make me think different

last edited by kussie at 13:59:02 01/Sep/04

I'm really not so sure it'd be that hard to fly a plane into something. line it up off a long approach and point cockpit window into building *shrugs*.. now if they were flying 20ft off the ground for an extended period of time, you might have an argument there.
But I'm no pilot, so *shrugs*.

make a paper aeroplane, get some gladwrap.

hold the gladwrap at each end and push the paper plane into the gladwrap. Notice what happens?

do we really need to explain the basic notion of dispersion of force here?

as for the security camera footage, why would they release it? there is no reason to release it, theres plenty of other footage in the world we'd like to see that hasn't been released.

and as for your queries about the pilots, there skill is the exact reason the plane hit the pentagon where it did. It has been reported on several occasions they were aiming to hit the centre of the pentagon but failed due to lack of piloting skills.

next pleae.

Yeah the wings may have done that, but how did the nose which is made of the same material manage to penerate 3 hole rings where as the rest of the aircraft disappeared upon initial impact?

Please show me the evidence of this. I wanted to see a picture of the actual nose part of the plane and the damaged section of the wall.

Why is there so little smoke and fire damage?

Please read what I posted about the fire suppressions etc above it’s pretty plausible and conventional.

How did the so called hijackers manage to fly a plane 20ft off the ground at 757, after the flying school called the apprant hijackers clueless and said they would never make it as pilots?

Heh haven’t you heard, he didn’t land the plane safely? ;) You’re assuming that the flew very low and didn’t nose dive etc. Like I said you can’t be serious about using that vid it’s too small to make head of tail (LOL puns LOL) of anything

Why didn't they release the video fottage from the sheraton, the gas station and transit authority? Why were the the secruity camera footage we did first released and the date read Septemeber 12, 2001?

Maybe the footage didn’t exist? I’m stretching here of course. As for the time stamp… it’s not hard to manipulate the pictures after all the Government do it don’t they ? ;)

better yet, for my gladwrap experiment, in the interests of the environment and wasting gladwrap, just remove the tin foil from your hat and perform the experiment.

we'll all be better off.

How do you know it was the nose that penetrated? Is there a piece of nosecone sitting outside that hole on the inner ring?

Part os the building collapsed, thats quite a bit of fire damage, and the pentagon would be compartmentalised to prevent fire from spreading too much.

Allah was on their side when flying.

Maybe it was set to GMT, maybe some $10 an hour security guard f***ed up, hell if I was making a conspiracy i sure as hell could change a date on a camera.

My god can beat up your god.

Yes but if the nose made the hole in the 3rd ring where did it go? There would be at least some debris of it there. Where as fire fighters found little or no debris of it there.


http://www.911-strike.com/Aerial_view_17_pic_trajectory.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/nose/punch_out_worker.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/nose/punch_out_hole.jpg

Notice the punchout? What made the hole? Where is the debris that would have remained from that? If it wasn't the nose what was it? Why was nothing found?

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/4/45/Photoshop.version6.750pix.jpg

http://home.cfl.rr.com/berman/photoshop/LightSabers.jpg

I was going to go to the effort of chopping a plane hitting the pentagon but I thought it was going to far, I'll just post the above pics to remind you that images are easily manipulated.

If it's against what you believe then sure they've got to be manipulated.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/nose/punch_out_hole.jpg

that looks to me like shredder and bebop took off through there with splinter and the TMNT in hot pursuit.

Notice the punchout? What made the hole? Where is the debris that would have remained from that? If it wasn't the nose what was it? Why was nothing found?

Given there is writing on the wall, it's obvious it was not extremely recent (and lack of fire) - so I'd say quite possibly cleaned up.
Who knows when that photo was taken, as Spidz has said about the photos all along

if I could be bothered imbedding sound I would, but this thread calls and reminds me of Weird Al'

It's Christmas at Ground Zero
There's music in the air
The sleigh bells are ringin' and the carolers are singin'
While the air raid sirens blare

It's Christmas at Ground Zero
The button has been pressed
The radio just let us know
That this is not a test

Everywhere the atom bombs are droppin'
It's the end of all humanity
No more time for last minute shoppin'
It's time to face your final destiny

Well, it's Christmas at Ground Zero
There's panic in the crowd
We can dodge debris while we trim the tree
Underneath a mushroom cloud

(siren)

You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
Or Jack Frost on your windowsill
But if someone's climbin' down your chimney
You better load your gun and shoot to kill

Oh, it's Christmas at Ground Zero
And if the radiation level's okay
I'll go out with you and see the all new
Mutations on New Year's Day

It's Christmas at Ground Zero
Just seconds left to go
I'll duck and cover with my yuletide lover
Underneath the mistletoe

It's Christmas at Ground Zero
Now the missiles are on their way
What a crazy fluke we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday
What a crazy fluke we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday

OMG WHERE DID THOSE KIDS GET REAL LIGHTSABERS??

Yeah the wings may have done that, but how did the nose which is made of the same material manage to penerate 3 hole rings where as the rest of the aircraft disappeared upon initial impact?

the nose didn't actually penitrate. it was the entire aircraft -wings that punched through the wall.

Why didn't they release the video fottage from the sheraton, the gas station and transit authority?

because it was evidence. and it also showed any prospective terrorist how flying a plane / shooting a missile would affect the building

Why were the the secruity camera footage we did first released and the date read Septemeber 12, 2001?

it is obvious that the date and "plane", "impact" where put there when looked at by evidence. that particular peice of evidence would have been studied probably a day after the attack (seeing though the other footage would be more usefull and studied first)

Why is there so little smoke and fire damage?

Because they where burning air. most likely the majority of the fuel was burned up when they crashed and dispersed into the air.

Notice the punchout? What made the hole? Where is the debris that would have remained from that?

on the other side of the camera

same place the missing passengers from the missing plane went.

they have lightsabres and everything there, even rail guns.

read my post above whitewolf, in regards to the punchout

last edited by kussie at 14:25:21 01/Sep/04

last edited by kussie at 14:27:33 01/Sep/04

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/nose/punch_out_worker.jpg
anyone see the difference between this pic and the other one?

both are after a pretty big cleanup by the looks of it, especially the second pic with the writing on the wall. And the whole in the wall is about 6ft high, so if it is in fact the punch out from the nose of an aircraft its only just reached it.

and if you think it was a smaller plane that hit the pentagon, I ask the same question, where is the debris?

ITS BEEN CLEANED UP.

ok, so something hit the pentagon... but if it was a missile or whatever, why would they have to cover it up?

Firefights them selves said they found little no evidence of any debris there.

read my post above whitewolf, in regards to the punchout

where was it stated that the nose punched a hole in the building?

i thought it was the engins... :/

IT WAS ALIENS.
The firefighter is really David Duchovny

Firefights them selves said they found little no evidence of any debris there.

Quick everyone listen to this guy.

They probably meant there was little debris that resembled a plane. Meaning it was blown apart/twisted/distorted/vaporized/crushed/whatever you want to call it. eesh.

While i don't really care about this thread, i though it appropriate to 'clear up' some issues.

And no-one in ATC noticed this plane going right off course and then suddenly disappearing off the radar?

Most civilian radar sees transponders not aircraft, turn them off and the aircraft dissapears from the screen. This is the difference between active and passive systems.

the WTC is made of steal which weakens in intense heat.

The reason WTC collasped was simple, they can't put out the fire - period. Had the fireman be able to get to it, it might be standing today -- may be. It was unfortunate that fire suppresion is completely useless in case because of the hight where the plane hit.

The entire structure was covered in fire proof material, a lot of this material survived the fire and subsequent collapse, the building collapsed because small sections were improperly coated in fire proof material and the subsequent stuctural weakness of the trusses. The collapse was also partly caused by one plane hitting on an angle, iirc the 2nd tower to get hit, fell first, the report i watched said the structure was incapable of sustaining a hit that caused structural weakness on a diagonal. Please note, i saw this on a doco on foxtel. It focused on why the towers collapsed and convered them from construction to collapse. Basically one of the main notions of the doco was that the towers 'should' have survived, provided they had been built to specifications on the first place.

Part os the building collapsed, thats quite a bit of fire damage, and the pentagon would be compartmentalised to prevent fire from spreading too much.

It's not a warship, they don't have water/fire proof bulkheads every 20 metres. Strong as its exterior is, the building is essentially a large squat office building.


last edited by dke at 14:56:14 01/Sep/04

Most civilian radar sees transponders not aircraft, turn them off and the aircraft dissapears from the screen. This is the difference between active and passive systems.

either way, it is still magically disappearing from the screen and that arouses suspicion.

oh, and if you want conspiracy?

the pentagon was 60 years old exactly to the day when it was hit by the "missile/plane"

here is an easy way to tell that it isn't a government coverup. Your questioning it. the government isn't actualy stupid. they can cover there arses rather well when they wan't to.

The entire structure was covered in fire proof material, which survived the fire and subsequent collapse, the building collapsed because small sections were improperly coated in fire proof material and the subsequent stuctural weakness of the trusses. The collapse was also partly caused by the planes hitting on an angle, iirc the 2nd tower to get hit fell first, the report i watched said the structure was incablable of sustaining a hit that caused structural weakness on a diagonal. Please note, i saw this on a doco on foxtel. It focused on why the towers collapsed and convered them from construction to collapse. Basically one of the main notions of the doco was that the towers 'should' have survived, provided they had been built to specifications on the first place.

Yes that was another thing I forgot to say. That was why the steel are coded with the Abstots (sp?) but the explosion had apparently blew that off and exposed the bare metal thus the eventual collasped. Also there was something about it the Abestose hasn't been applied correctly or something like that.

But that doesn't help by the fact that they can't put out the fire easily because of the height of the building.

opec

www.suprnova.org

Movies > Documenteries > in plan site.

you're ignoring evidence and we're ignoring a retarded theory based on anti-govt sentiment.

So what you are saying is, no matter what factual events occurred, our conclusion in our own minds as to what specifically happened, is already pre-determined based upon political persuation?
That's even more retarded than all your other posts.

"Hey look, Leyyton Hewitt won the us open it's in the news ! "

"No he didn't, I don't like him"
bahah.



last edited by slap69 at 10:39:05 02/Sep/04

what the hell slap69? the conclusion that you came up with wasn't predeturmened. its just your bias is towards the govt coverup, where as it should be anti terrorist. because all this "inconclusive" data have actualy been explaned to you.

Wrong. Bias has nothing to do with logically analysing facts. I'm not that naive.

political persuasion has nothing to do with anti-govt sentiment.

political persuasion relates to what side of polictics you support, anti-govt sentiment relates to those of you with tin foil pillow cases.

Semantics dude, doesn't negate from the overall validity of my post. My point still stands unchallenged.

if you go back and look at all the facts and logically analyse them you will come to a logical conclusion, the same one the rest of us have come up with.

you say logic, I say twisted logic when it comes to your conspiracy theories.

Who are you to deem what is twisted and what is correct huh? You are just a pleb like everyone of us. Your posts are pure opinion, you wouldn't know what happenned anywhere, apart from what you saw that led you to believe what you do. I don't beleive ANY explanation, cause I don't know. All I can do is analyse, it's the only option that is logical.

thats a nice mentality to have.

I wasn't at the WTC either but I'm still pretty sure a couple of planes hit them. Why? because I saw it on the news....

It would be incorrect to label my way of thinking a "mentality".I'm just a base human open to anything my brain tells me makes sense. It's being a normal human. You are the one with a true fabricated "mentality".

men·tal·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "mentality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-tl-t)
n. pl. men·tal·i·ties

1. Cast or turn of mind: a vindictive mentality.

Anything but what you beleive isn't plausable. :) It's been fun Spidz.

plenty of things that I don't believe are plausible.

eg: I believe Collingwood to be the greatest team on earth, but the ladder tells me different :/

It would be incorrect to label my way of thinking a "mentality".I'm just a base human open to anything my brain tells me makes sense.

Very little of what you have said makes sense, especially your comment about if you weren't there or didn't see it you don't know. I gave you a fine example and you have chosen to withdraw.

It doesn't make sense to YOU in particular, because I am conversing with you above a level your brain feels competent to compete with?

Ask your mum or dad if what I've said makes sense.

MENSA troll alert.

*sigh


some people...
How come these conspiracy theorists can't at least lead cool and interesting lives like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory?

In comes alex jones to fill the void (some say this dude is really bill hicks, and he faked his death)

http://www.sacredcow.com/media/links/alex/houston/alex_joe_houston_2002_bg.ram

It doesn't make sense to YOU in particular, because I am conversing with you above a level your brain feels competent to compete with?

HAhaha that made be laughed out loud in real life :).

spidz face it bro you've been trolled :).

slap, all your questions have been answered "logicaly" (and any that havn't should be pointed out) yet you still want to belive alot of stuff that would be illogical. 1 main one is motive

what the hell is the point of covering it up? even if it was a missile? there isn't any obvious point, and you can't say money/oil/scapegoat because when the WTC's fell, i think that would be enough reason for all of the above

It may not have been the government who knows, when a crime occurs you need to ask Who Benefits.

The arms dealers are selling hunreds of billions of new weapons.
The international monetary fund and the world bank have create over one trillion dollars in new loans in the last year alone.
Isreal is juming for joy because they have been pushing the US to attack arab nations for years.
The multinational oil corpations have taken control of the rich caspian oil fields.

It should also be shown that bush is heavily involved wit hthe carlyle group, one of the nations largest defence contracters, Which is generating mega bucks from the war on terror.

What about the anthrax letters bombs which Iraq was said to be behind. What is intresting to note is that there is micron used in the anthrax used in the letters is only used and produced in one specfic US weapons Lab, and is 10times finer then any soviet grade. When this evidence was boguht up media dropped the stories. The medical company making the vaccine cipro sales went through the roof, making the company billions of dollars

Why were no fighter jets scrambled when they were hijacked and/or disappaeared off radar which is stantard FAA regulation and doesn't require an order from bush to do so. Why has bush stopped any other 9/11 inquries? When we went to Afganistan and installed the government the person we installed happened to be a former oil company (Unocal). The first order of business was the oil pipeline? The taliban destroyed Afgan's supply and farms of Opium Poppy's, once we installed our government we allowed the growing opium poppys to start once agian? How did a passport from one of the hijackers on the WTC planes, manage to fall out of his pocket, through the plane, through the fire of the explosion and later found undamged at all, and yet they claim the flight box records (which are built to survive the toughest of accidents) was mostly destroyed? Why would the suspected hijackers go to a strip club and get drunk, leaving thier business cards and the coran while telling people there of there plan, it is important to note that getting drunk and such is forbidded by Islamic law. Why have people on the hijacker list have turned up alive in morroco, egypt and saudi arabi? Why would mohammad atta (one of the hijackers) pack a bag full of clothes, his plan, licence and passport which luckily for investigators never made it on the plane, knowing he was going to commit suicide? Flight 93 (the one that "crashed"), looks a lot more like it was shot down, Aircraft debris was scatted over an 8mile radius? When the FBI wanted to investigate the hijackers at flight schools, central head quarters told them to stop, why? The turns used by aircraft would need to have been done by a very skilled pilot, some turns that were shown would have equated to 6g's which only a very skilled pilot can endure and perform such a turn. Flights 11, 176, 93 and 77 had combined seating for more then 1328 passangers, while on that day there was only 266 people on all 4 planes, which is only a 20.03%, and normal trans-continietal flights averages over 75%, American and United Airlanes have remained very tight lipped about this. On August 15th 2001 many of the Taliban leaders where in houston, trying to come to an agreement over the pipline with Unocal, but they refused. Why was there an explosion at WTC 6 before the two towers collapsed? The sismec readings show the WTC6 matched that of an actual demolition using explosives. Jet fuel burns at about 1800 degrees F, it takes temperatures of 2700F+ to melt steel, desks and other furniture burn at a relative low temperature, combined with the concrete, aluminium and lack of oxygen the WTC fires would have only roughly burnt at 1200-1300F. And upon zooming right in on the photos there is only small fires, with most of the jet fuel exploding outside of the building? Why hasn't the FAA released full flight path data, and flight recorder data?


Another note dozens of steel towers have caught on fire and burned for long periods without collapsing. In fact excluding the WTC no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire. A good example is the meridian plaza building in Philidelphia, 1997, caught on fire and burned over 8 stories for 19 hours.

It is also important to note that the south tower collapse defies the laws of physics. A few things to note the top of the tower was tilting at 23degrees, yet the building managed to come down neatly upon itself, even though it's center of gravity is off. The top and lower sections would break into pieces and would not pulverize due to resitence. Also note this. The north tower came down in 8.1 seconds. Now let's like at the law of falling bodies by galileo. Which is still widely accepted and used by scienects today. The total distance traveled at the end of any specfic time in a total vacum is found out by the following calculation:
Distance (D) = (32.16/2) * time in seconds squared. If there is any resistince the speed and time of the falling body slows down. The towers were 1350 feet tall thus this equation would show the fastest possible time for the towers to come down.
1350 = (32.16/2) * time in seconds squared. This works to be the fastest possible time for the towers to fall would be 9.1627 seconds. Hhmm how did north tower come down in 8.1 seconds? Initially there was resisitence which was over 250 interior steel columns, and thosands of steel trusses. Thus either the height of the towers is innaccurate, the time it took fall is innaccurate, the scientific calculation which has been used for hundreds of years is innaccurate or something pulled down these building at a faster rate.

Remember the grey cloud from the falling that covered the area and a grey dand like subtance. What was it? Cement and other crystiziled materials. Could a blast of jet fuel create this crystalization? No, because at full blast jet fuel only expands at 208 feet per second. Could a compression demolition (the offical reason why the towers collapsed, also known as the pancake effect) create this? No there is not enough energy - the cement would crack and break but would not pulverize. The only way the molecular composition of these materials could be so scambled is if there were small scale nuclear devices or high tech explosives. Since there were no unusual readings of radioactivity this rules out nuclear devices, modern explosions are the logical choice.

RDX or C-4 can expand at over 1000feet per second, and create extremely hot tempatures. Modern explosives could cause the crystalization of the building materials, while creating a vacuum that could pull down the buildings at a faster then normal speed and leave a residue of extremely high temperatures.

There was an increase of 1200% in trading activity a week before 9/11, where stocks of American Airlines and United Airlines went "short" (definition for those who don't know - It basically means they will make money if stocks go down), this was reported by the Chicago Secruities Exchange.

They were reports from people near by of Isreali's on the roof recording the first impact and jumping for joy, They are claimed to have links to mossad. They were reported to the police and taken away.

6 of the 8 pilots on those 4 planes had military training, why did they put up a fair struggle for control?

The pilots not being from this country would have to fly by sight for several hundred miles. They were also reported to bring the planes from 30,000 feet permfoming fast and tight 280 degree turns and hit thier targets with bullseye precision by hand. Not likly.

A normal aircraft creats 1 and half to two times the normal gravity when it turns. With turns at this altitude, this speed and this degree of tightness. The plane would be pulling 6-7 times that of normal gravity. According to experienced commercial pilots these manurves would be virtually impossible for anyone but the most advanced of pilots.

Another occurce flights 175 and 11 crossed paths at the exact time above stewart airport in new windsor new york.

There was either massive criminal negilence on the FAA's and Norad part or an order was given somewhere to stand down and not scamble fighters to protect New York and Washington. The Administration was squashed all efforts have an open fair, enquiry into 9/11. The governments enquiry was headed by Kissinger, one of the most corrupt.

Why do this?
Money
Oil
Closer to a single world government
To create fear (When people are scared logical thinking goes out the window, and leaves them open to be tricked into supporting and doing things they would usally do, like say go to war)
Just a few possible reasons i came up with.


This is just a few things i found concerning and/or questionable. Id on't care what some of you say, but these are some very important facts to me. Don't forget even the media are parts of major coroparations that make money of events like this.

and on a side note i have actually had enough of dicating my own beliefs to people, so i will not activly reply to debate this anymore. Besides can't we just let this thread die.

last edited by kussie at 12:33:14 03/Sep/04

Did you write that?

Yep took me a damn long while too.

That post is targetted towards people who are open minded and challange the offical facts allbeit wether they are wrong or right.

So no doubt i am expecting the usual assualt of name calling and such, but there is a few people who will take some of those into there mind and start to activly question others themselves. It's not a matter of trying to sway other people's opinions but rather showing evidence that explains my own individual opinion.


last edited by kussie at 12:47:42 03/Sep/04

Ok I've changed my mind, it was a missle all along. Astroboy was right.

Oh my god, i was wronnnnng
it was earth, all aloonnggggg
theyve finally made a monkey
oh yes theyve finally made a monkey
theyyyvvve finnnnaallly maaaaddeee
aaaaa mooonnnkeeeyy outtt offff meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

touch down for democracy

kussie's sig is cool

see simpsons is applicable to any situation :)

it takes temperatures of 2700F+ to melt steel

So what? The steel didn't have to melt, it just had to weaken enough so it couldn't hold the weight... but you knew that, it just sounds better when you don't link the counter points, a common tactic of just about every conspiracy theory.

Nice post Kussie. Whitewolf, I'm gonna have to post what I've been trying to get through to Spidz all along. My point is, *drum roll*

it_is_stupid_to_assume_your_opinion_is__factually_correct at_any_time.

It's just funny dragging him out, never to admit the possibility of his own mind being wrong, like he's got some sort of personal attatchment to the issue or some shiz. It might be a reflection of his self-importance!


last edited by slap69 at 14:32:50 03/Sep/04

kussie tldr.

it isn't an opinion, its a fact - and stop trolling me :/

in 50 years time history books will tell us that a plane hit the pentagon, just like they tell us now that WW2 happened, or is that not real either??#!@$@

It is opinion, facts also prove the other story as well.

What about the video of President Kennedy being shot which clearly showed he was killed from the front not behind like was stated by the authorities. But still nothing has changed the story because people refuse to believe things that conflict with thier own beliefs and what they have seen on the news.


And of course WW2 happened but the outcome could have been much different. Like the several warning before Pearl Harbour which could have allowed to get some defence up in time. and apprantly not sure wether to believe this or not, but the US has broken the Jap codes and knew about Pearl Harbour and let it happen because they wanted a reason to enter the war.

last edited by kussie at 20:19:38 03/Sep/04

Yeah, they needed an excuse to enter the war so they let a bunch of their ships get f***ed up... They could've entered the war at any stage and to have stopped the attacks, if they had known that they were going to happen, they would have entered into the war anyway on the basis that they knew the attacks were going to happen.

it isn't an opinion, its a fact - and stop trolling me :/

I'm not trolling you man. If it's easier for you to deal with my posts thinking I am, feel free. No its not factual what you think, your brain is telling you it is a fact, it is merely a semi-educated opinion I'm afraid.



last edited by slap69 at 20:58:54 03/Sep/04

It is getting kind of annoying having to reverse engineer your private school prep boy followed by uni followed by cushy arse suit and tie job upbringing btw.

At least try and understand others views.

To create fear (When people are scared logical thinking goes out the window, and leaves them open to be tricked into supporting and doing things they would usally do, like say go to war)

Yeah, uhm, I hate to continue this thread..
And maybe you can bring up multiple sources of the polls.. but uhm, didnt the majority disagree with the war? so yeah...

If i remember correctly it was actually pretty even. But the US still went and waged an illegal war, throwing thier consituation out the window. Because acording to that document congress also needs to agree to the war, but congress did not agree or there was no vote i forgot which it was.

last edited by kussie at 22:01:21 03/Sep/04

Woulda taken the UN f***in ages to do anything anyway. Look at Rwanda..the UN sits around for f***ing ages scratching their nuts for ages before they act. Sure there wern't any WMD's there but there was a pretty good chance that their was and we're probably actually better off that there wern't otherwise we could never be sure that they didn't offload them onto terrorists hands or other nasty countries. Maybe they did and thats where they went? Who knows. Iraq is better off having been invaded and Saddam gone.

kussie you sig is cool whats it from?

Last episode of Stargate Season 7, i've changed it now as per someones request