9/11

GostHacked · January 27, 2007

No, I LOOKED at the photographs (with my eyes) of the Pentagon and came to the conclusion that an airliner could NOT have hit it or there would have been airliner parts and body parts.

Or

Perhaps they have invented a new jet -- one with disappearing wings?

Come on.

We all saw jets fly into the towers. I was not questioning that.

NO ONE saw an jet liner slam into the Pentagon.

So the video of the jet hitting it is fake? It was released by the pentagon sometime last year.

Who knew?

That video did not prove either side. It was not clear enough to show a plane hit the Pentagon. There was not enough evidence to show that there was NO plane hitting it. The video is utterly useless for both camps for it does not show anything that has not already been shown before.

I want to see the taped from the transportation authorities (hiway cams) the gas station cams that were close by and the hotel cameras must have captured some of the plane ... but we have yet to see ANY SUBSTANTIAL PROOF that a plane hit the Pentagon. If it was a plane, it was NOT a 767 like they claim.

Riverwind · January 27, 2007

That video did not prove either side. It was not clear enough to show a plane hit the Pentagon. There was not enough evidence to show that there was NO plane hitting it. The video is utterly useless for both camps for it does not show anything that has not already been shown before.

What truthies seem to forget is that few things in science can proven. That is why we have the 'Theory of Gravity' and not the 'Proof of Gravity'. That is why scientists usually rely on plausibility as a test to determine whether a theory is likely. The plane hitting the pentagon theory is extremely plausible given the other events that occurred that day therefore it is the generally accepted explanation even if there is no video evidence of the final impact.

Similarily, the thruthie theory is extremely implausible because it requires an impossibly complex hoax for which there is no evidence. That is why virtually every scientist and even some truthies dismiss the idea that something other than a plane hit the pentagon.

That is also why very few people think that there is any need to prove the 'plane hitting the pentagon' theory any more than it has already been proven.

jbg · January 28, 2007

This thread is better than a comic strip.

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

It doesn't matter if a plane hit the Pentagon. Bombs went off inside the Pentagon 5 minutes before anything hit it. The part of the Pentagon that was hit contained offices of people investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars that went missing and that was announced by Rumsfeld on CNN on Sept 10 2001.

All the investigators died except one, who was heavily promoted afterwards. Still no 2.3 trillion, now its over 3 trillion dollars. According to Rumsfeld its because the computers are not connected properly. Imagine that.

See Seven Days In September, a report written by a Pentagon Colonel.

"Wake Up Wake Up Wake Up" - Don Henley "Inside Job"

"Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe?" -- Quote by Adam Weishaupt (founder of Bavarian Illuminati)

Canadian Blue · January 28, 2007

So can you back up any of these claim's, since no eyewitnesses said anything about explosion's prior.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

So can you back up any of these claim's, since no eyewitnesses said anything about explosion's prior.

Poly does not need to back things up. Whatever he says must be true becasue he wants it to be true .

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

Seven Hours In September does explain and back it all up.

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

If it was a plane, it was NOT a 767 like they claim.

So uh... Gost/Poly...

Where'd the people onboard go?

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

CanadianBlue:So can you back up any of these claim's, since no eyewitnesses said anything about explosion's prior.

Thats not true. See Seven Hours In September. The Pentagon Attack Papers

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

geoffrey:So uh... Gost/Poly...
Where'd the people onboard go?

People have suggested that they were all CIA agents, after the plane landed they just went home like another day at the office.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

People have suggested that they were all CIA agents, after the plane landed they just went home like another day at the office.

But your theory is worthless unless you have some evidence to back it up. The lack of evidence supporting the truthie story arc renders any psuedo scientific analysis of the disaster sites irrelevant.

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

Riverwind:But your theory is worthless unless you have some evidence to back it up.

So is yours. The official version is a lot more rediculous than this. This pases the reality test much better than the official version of events. Calling cell phones from 30,000 ft is impossible. This isn't.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

So is yours. The official version is a lot more rediculous than this. This pases the reality test much better than the official version of events. Calling cell phones from 30,000 ft is impossible. This isn't.

You are making up facts again. The only people who claim that cellphone calls were made from 30,000 feet are the truthies. The official reports don't have any information about whether a cellphone was used or an airphone. If the planes were at 30,00 feet when a call was made then it must have been made from an airphone. If you disagree then you have to prove otherwise by producing the records from the phone companies. If you don't have access to those records then you must acknowlegde that your entire point is a fiction created to justify your 'theories'.

Canadian Blue · January 28, 2007

People have suggested that they were all CIA agents, after the plane landed they just went home like another day at the office.

What about the families of the dead passengers, are they all in on the lie as well?

jbg · January 28, 2007

This thread puts me in a lyrical mood (link)

=====================================================================

Billy Preston - Will It Go Around In Circles?

I've got a song that ain't got no melody.

I'm gonna sing it to my friends.

I've got a song that ain't got no melody.

I'm gonna sing it to my friends.

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a story, ain't got no moral.

let the bad guy win, every once in a while.

I've got a story, ain't got no moral.

Let the bad guy win, every once in a while.

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a dance that ain't got no steps, no.

Gonna let the music move me around.

I've got a dance that ain't got no steps, no.

Gonna let the music move me around.

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?

Will it go around in circles?

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky

PolyNewbie · January 29, 2007

CanadianBlue:What about the families of the dead passengers, are they all in on the lie as well?

I don't know. I don't think about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not. 911 being an inside job is already obvious long before you get to thinking about all of the uncertainties about the Pentagon. My money would be on Seven Days In September being true.

Black Dog · January 29, 2007

I don't know. I don't think about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not. 911 being an inside job is already obvious long before you get to thinking about all of the uncertainties about the Pentagon.

Uh...wouldn't what have transpired at the Pentagon and in the field in PA have tremendous bearing on the whole "inside job narrative". I'm still trying to figure out why they would:

a) crash planes into the World Trade Centre, but use controlled demolition/nuclear bombs(!?) or rayguns to bring them down.

fire a missile intop the Pentagon but pretend it was a plane (instead of using an actual plane, like in NYC)

c) hijacking a third plane and shoot it down/crash it/fake crashing it into a farmer's field in PA.

As I said about 30 pages ago: there's no coherent narrative here to support the inside job thesis, no reason why the plan would include so many uneccesary (and conflicting) elements.

PolyNewbie · January 30, 2007

Black Dog:Uh...wouldn't what have transpired at the Pentagon and in the field in PA have tremendous bearing on the whole "inside job narrative".

No. wtc7 proves it was a staged terror attack. The way wtc1 & wtc 2 fell at near freefall speed proves 911 was an inside job. The numerous coincidences prior and during the attacks prove 911 was an inside job. Congressional testimony strongly suggests 911 was an inside job. The behaviour of the government after 911 was that of a guilty party. The government had the most to gain from what happened on 911. They are getting very rich off the wars. The person who directed the official investigations and reporting of the 911 accident was a propogandist by profession (Philip Zelikow) Look him up yourself on wiki.

Riverwind · January 30, 2007

No. wtc7 proves it was a staged terror attack. The way wtc1 & wtc 2 fell at near freefall speed proves 911 was an inside job.

Such observations prove nothing. You yourself have admitted that this entire 'proof' rests on a rule of thumb regarding the height of rubble after a collapse. No credible scientist would call a calculation based on a rule of thumb a 'proof'

The truthie narrative is irrational, contradictory and does not have a shred of concrete evidence to support it. Provide some concrete evidence of the narrative and people might start to take you seriously.

PolyNewbie · January 30, 2007

Riverwind:You yourself have admitted that this entire 'proof' rests on a rule of thumb regarding the height of rubble after a collapse.

No, I didn't. You are a fool. I never said that.

Canadian Blue · January 30, 2007

No. wtc7 proves it was a staged terror attack. The way wtc1 & wtc 2 fell at near freefall speed proves 911 was an inside job. The numerous coincidences prior and during the attacks prove 911 was an inside job. Congressional testimony strongly suggests 911 was an inside job. The behaviour of the government after 911 was that of a guilty party. The government had the most to gain from what happened on 911. They are getting very rich off the wars. The person who directed the official investigations and reporting of the 911 accident was a propogandist by profession (Philip Zelikow) Look him up yourself on wiki.

Hold up didn't you say it was so the American military would be destroyed and foreign invaders would take over the United States. I don't know about everyone here, but to me that doesn't make any sense.

PolyNewbie · January 30, 2007

CanadianBlue:Hold up didn't you say it was so the American military would be destroyed and foreign invaders would take over the United States. I don't know about everyone here, but to me that doesn't make any sense.

Motivation has already been given by showing how rich everyone gets off of war.

You can't domestic armies to point guns at citizens so you have to replace them with foreign soldiers. A great way to do this is to have a war and let our soldiers get killed so they can be replaced by foreigners who will point guns at us and lead us to the concentration camps for execution. (else who would feed all these people locked up ? )

Canadian Blue · January 30, 2007

Motivation has already been given by showing how rich everyone gets off of war.
You can't domestic armies to point guns at citizens so you have to replace them with foreign soldiers. A great way to do this is to have a war and let our soldiers get killed so they can be replaced by foreigners who will point guns at us and lead us to the concentration camps for execution. (else who would feed all these people locked up ? )

Isn't that from the movie Red Dawn starring Patrick Swayze?

Anyway's, which foriegn soldiers could possibly do that, as the American's still have million's of members of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Coast Guard at home.

PolyNewbie · January 30, 2007

CanadianBlue:Isn't that from the movie Red Dawn starring Patrick Swayze?

No, in that movie the Russians attacked. You watch too much TV. Everything you say comes from TV.

Canadian Blue · January 30, 2007

No, in that movie the Russians attacked. You watch too much TV. Everything you say comes from TV.

No, I just make it a habit to not live in my parents basement till I'm 40, so I watch movies, read books, poetry, exercise, you know the usual.

So who are the foreign soldiers going to be anyways, what military could muster up enough manpower to bring all of North America under totalitarian control?

I think the US Military has only lost maybe 5,000 men in the past 6 years, and even then they still have well over a million members.