Jump to content

9/11 the truth and lies part 1


Recommended Posts

something the american media has yet to point on in the united states

there is no doubt planes hit the world trade center but what about the pentagon, why is it in probably the most important city in the world (other than new york) that there is no coverage of a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon

point 1 - the impact point at the pentagin was 2 meters above the ground, there was no marks of an pbject hitting the ground before, is this was a boeing 757 this would be physically impossible, the engines lie 15m below the elevation of the nose

Point 2 - when you slow the one piece of footage available which shows the pentagon and about a football field of area in front you can paus t just before the "aricraft" hits the building, in no way does it represent a boeing 757, it looks more like a missile

Point 3 - the plane supposedly hit the pentagon at a speef of 530 mph, but yet there was no report of jet blast on the highway

point 4 - there was no wreckage from the airplane found

point 5 - the hit went through three layers of the pentagon (e, d, and c of section 1) which are steel reinforced concrete, this is near impossible

point 6 - the area hit had been under construction and the workers were given an extended weekend which no other employee at the pentagon received

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love conspiracy theories, and this is among the most intriguing. However, I sometimes wonder if all the facts you've presented are true. I'm not suggesting you made them up, but I wonder about the original sources.

The problem is WHY. Why would the Republicans target the Pentagon with a missile when they already had a missile in the form of an airliner. And if that airliner didn't strike the Pentagon, then what happened it?

In summary, the Republicans would have to hit the Pentagon with a missile AND lose an airliner. It's just hard to swallow.

Nevertheless, I'm still willing to consider the possibility. One possibility is that they wanted to control the damage done to the Pentagon, and an airliner would have been impossible to manage. So they used a missile that created just the amount and quality of destruction they wanted, then crashed the missing airliner at sea. It still sounds awfully farfetched, but Bush's performance on 9/11 is unbelievable, too.

Also, remember that airliner that crashed in New York City a few days after 9/11? I thought that was kind of odd, though the media painted it as nothing more than a coincidence. It's hard to understand how it might have been connected to 9/11, but it certainly made me curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a link to a site with a thorough treatment of this crackpot theory the LAST TIME somebody posted this topic.

Here's the thread:

Crackpot theories

And here's the debunking:

Snopes

When there's undeniable evidence of what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11, why is it so hard to accept that a 3rd plane might have been hijacked and crashed into a target?

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy into the theory that this was staged by the USA government. Bush took advantage of the situation to eventually invade Iraq but I don't believe that even he is capable of the type of evil this theory presents. There was in fact, a fourth airliner that crashed with the help of citizens aboard, before it reached its target.

Bush's subsequent actions and attitudes do not need this type of embellishment. Flying out the Bin Laden family AFTER the attack on WTC while refusing to allow planes with ordinary American citizens to land...????????

Invading Iraq despite being shown his "proofs" were false, fraudulent or lacking substance is enough for me.

Using bribery and threats in an attempt to push other countries into approving his plans was dispicable.

Let's stick to what we know as rock solid proof of his arrogant bullying and disdain for international laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush took advantage of the situation to eventually invade Iraq but I don't believe that even he is capable of the type of evil this theory presents.

Whether or not Bush's team could pull off a stunt like this I don't know, but I do believe that Bush is fully capable of doing something this evil.

There was in fact, a fourth airliner that crashed with the help of citizens aboard, before it reached its target.

That hasn't been proven. There's evidence to suggest that a military jet shot that airliner out of the sky.

Bush's subsequent actions and attitudes do not need this type of embellishment. Flying out the Bin Laden family AFTER the attack on WTC while refusing to allow planes with ordinary American citizens to land...????????
Invading Iraq despite being shown his "proofs" were false, fraudulent or lacking substance is enough for me.

Yes, these are more than enough to condemn Bush. However, they also make it easier to believe even some of the wildest conspiracy theories. What are George Bush's limits?

Let's stick to what we know as rock solid proof of his arrogant bullying and disdain for international laws.

Because we want to learn all we can by continuing to ask questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really of two minds here. On the one hand, I certainly don't buy the official version of events (Snopes or no Snopes): 757s are very large aircraft flown, in this case, by an inexperienced pilit. Yet that pilot was able to execute a sharp spiral dive, and bring the plane in at treetop height. Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is WHY. Why would the Republicans target the Pentagon with a missile when they already had a missile in the form of an airliner. And if that airliner didn't strike the Pentagon, then what happened it?

In summary, the Republicans would have to hit the Pentagon with a missile AND lose an airliner. It's just hard to swallow.

I'm not saying this is what happened but rather suggesting it as a possibility, what if they in fact made up the airline so to speak, for example put the information of this supposed flight into the database????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a link to a site with a thorough treatment of this crackpot theory the LAST TIME somebody posted this topic.

Here's the thread:

Crackpot theories

And here's the debunking:

Snopes

When there's undeniable evidence of what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11, why is it so hard to accept that a 3rd plane might have been hijacked and crashed into a target?

-kimmy

well kimmy there is some interesting stuff on your snopes site however it really doesn't go in depth enough to disprove what I have said, for example, the plane only went through the first three layers of wedge 1 in the pentagon, if you look at the final two wholes you will notics they are nearly perfect circles, when an airplane hits it explodes in all directions, when a missile hits it typicaly explodes in one direction in order to increase the effectiveness of the explosion. also there was only one whole in the actual building, no danage done to it from the wings, thus the claim that there was a 12 foot whole from one of the engines is flat out wrong. second thing is this false claim that the jet not only hit the ground first but also took a steep dive. the government said that they plane flew right over the insterstate freeway, this would mean that this plane would then have to increase its height sharply to get over a hill blocking the pentagon and then dive suddenly, im sorry but a boeing 757 can physically not do this. also there were no "skid" marks from the plane hitting the ground first. it is clear that the plane hit the pentagon first. also judging from the same security tapes you and i have seen it is clear that the plane was not diving steeply and clearly did not hit the ground first. the third thing i have a problem with is the picture that supposedly proves that the wings from the airplane did cause damage. you see to big blackened dots on the outside of the explosion point supposedly from the engines, unfortunately for these to be from the engines would mean that the engines would have been on the outer edge of the wing, whenin fact on boeing 757's they are held close to the fuselage.also it is impossible for the wings to hit the wall, cause an explosion like they did and then also be pulled in with the fuselage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity why would bush blow up the pentagon? did he want to collect the insurance money, because the redecorator sucked, and simply took advantage of the situation? I like reading different conspiracy theories, they are always a fun read. However most conspiracy theories atleast tell you why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity why would bush blow up the pentagon? did he want to collect the insurance money, because the redecorator sucked, and simply took advantage of the situation? I like reading different conspiracy theories, they are always a fun read. However most conspiracy theories atleast tell you why?

You asked, "Why wouldl Bush blow up the Pentagon?"

That's a good question. One possibility is that the Republicans simply weren't content with the destruction of the World Trade Center; they wanted to promote the terrorist attacks as an attack on our military.

Here's another theory:

There's abundant evidence - virtual proof - that Bush had advance notice of the terrorist attacks. Many people believe the Republicans were even more actively involved in the attacks.

But think about it: If you were a foreign terrorist planning a major attack on the U.S., would you feel comfortable openly working with Republicans? Probably not.

Therefore, the Republicans likely would have worked with the terrorists through operatives. And if foreign terrorists were unknowingly being guided by Republicans, the Republicans may still be playing the same games with terrorists they're playing on the rest of us.

Thus, if it remained an essentially Al Qaeda operation, then Al Qaeda would have chosen the targets. And if the Republicans want Al Qaeda to believe it (Al Qaeda) was in full control, then it should have allowed the airliners to strike most of their targets.

The Republicans shot down one airliner because they wanted to protect the White House. They wanted the terrorists to think they had struck the Pentagon, but they wanted to control the damage, so they substituted a missilel for the airliner.

And the World Trade Center was fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...