|
Post by PeterB on May 25, 2006 1:48:20 GMT -4
911:Inside Job said:
Not surprising, is it? If she was inside the building, she wouldn't necessarily have a view to the outside of the building.
Where I sit at work I have a window seat looking out from the 5th floor to a courtyard surrounded by other buildings. If a plane was to fly into my building from the road (opposite) side of the building, there'd be no way I could see it coming. And I'd probably reckon a bomb went off, too, as I understand she did.
Source for this claim?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 25, 2006 3:02:12 GMT -4
Again this thing crops up that the attackers mean to hit the building presicely where they did. It's only hard if you plan to follow that exact flight path. If you don't actually care where you hit, as long as you get close enough to do damage, then the flight path merely becomes reckless, not hard to fly it so preciely.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 25, 2006 3:34:56 GMT -4
One of these days, I want to hear a conspiracy theory in which all the witnesses say a bomb went off, but the conspiracy theorists think it was something else.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 25, 2006 5:25:10 GMT -4
One of these days, I want to hear a conspiracy theory in which all the witnesses say a bomb went off, but the conspiracy theorists think it was something else. How about if the vast majority of witnesses say they saw a plane, one who may or may not have even really seen it says it sounded like a bomb, NO witness claims to have seen a missile, so the conspiracy theorists think it was a missile. Or maybe a bomb. But definitely not a plane. Oh, never mind. That already is the case. Strike that...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 25, 2006 14:38:14 GMT -4
I meant....I have in my head an image of a well-attended and properly announced building demolitions. Mark and his guys are crawling around in their hard hats and orange vests, cops are out setting barricades, the whole sideshow. Then, as the building starts to crumble, some lone CT in the back of the crowd starts yelling; "See! See that alien ship hiding behind that cloud? That's what's really making this fall!"
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 25, 2006 19:53:58 GMT -4
One of these days, I want to hear a conspiracy theory in which all the witnesses say a bomb went off, but the conspiracy theorists think it was something else. Heh. Haven't you heard the Bali bombing conspiracy theories? It wasn't a suicide bomber followed by a truck bomb. No-o-o-o. It was a sub-compact suitcase nuke. The evidence for this claim? Something to do with the size of the truck bomb's blast crater. It was a special nuke which didn't generate radiation... again
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 25, 2006 23:28:59 GMT -4
Oh, FSM. Wanna bet all the CT's are going to be calling for "anti-matter bombs" now? I wonder what strange properties they'll be ascribing to those....
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on May 28, 2006 15:05:39 GMT -4
Are you planning to acknowledge the previous rebuttal of your changes, or are you just going to ignore them? Well, I notice you all conveniently ignored the quote from pilot Russ Wittenburg about the maneuver being impossible for a 757. The maneuver (330 degree turn at 530 MPH, followed by a descent of 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes) is impossible in that type of plane, according to an experienced pilot. That's all the proof we need that the Pentagon wasn't hit by that plane. Exactly what it was hit with is still open for debate. Why didn't the government terrorists use a 757? Because it would have been a lot easier to use a stealthy military-based delivery system and then say it was a 757 to pin it on the alleged hijackers. Just because ONE pilot, who never put a plane through it's "paces" before, says it is impossible, does NOT inspire me to believe your stupid theory. 1) Someone mentioned high G's pulled by this terrorist pilot. B.S.! That is based on the assumption that the plane was doing the reported 530 mph at the time of the turn. As I heard it, the plane accelerated sharply AFTER the turn, in a mad attempt to regain/maintain flight at a low altitude. This creates more lift on the wings, and could keep the plane from "bumping bottom" on the way in. But I've seen pictures of the "tail scrape" on the lawn outside the hole. (MIssiles don't "tail scrape."] 2) [ A descent of 7000 feet in 2.5 minutes] - is achievable while "diving" a heavy 757 with throttles full forward (something your experienced pilot has no training in) 3) By your OWN admission.... "That's all the proof we need that the Pentagon wasn't hit by that plane." ONE man's word? Against all the millions of others? And against ALL the physical evidence? You're willing to believe in, and advance, a theory implicating our government (which I despise currently) in a plot to kill Amercan citizens JUST to justify a war that we'd already started planning for? Based on ONE man's word? 4) "Because it would have been a lot easier to use a stealthy military-based delivery system and then say it was a 757 to pin it on the alleged hijackers." LOL!!! NO! It wouldn't be! Not ever BEING in the service of our country, as you obviously haven't, you wouldn't be expected (with your gullible inexperienced mind) to know how much paperwork is involved in launching a military missile! And at THAT target? LOL! Now, you've got an entire base full of patriotic soldiers involved in your conspiracy! No.... It would be MUCH easier to use a MILITARY version of the 757, or a 707 for that matter, with no passengers or windows, if THAT is what you wanted to say happened! Or even to use the actual commercial flight with all its passengers! If ANY American patriot was involved in purpetrating such a "stealthy" attack on our own soil, then MANY would have to have been, and someone would have "talked" by now. 5) Are you familiar with the tensile strength of the rebar used in today's "re-inforced concrete? Given that the wings DID, in fact, fold back against the fuselage and were greatly destroyed, I would expect to see a hole of a lesser diameter than the fuselage of a 757. As it burst through the building, being compressed into a smaller tube in the process, it pushed concrete forward, but did not break it all free from the rebar. This rebar, especially under heated conditions, will "relax" and allow huge "panels" of concrete to close in on the circle. Try punching a hole in a plastic coffee cup lid with a pen, and then pull it out. You will see a hole of less diameter than the pen! I wish I knew when you CT's were going to have a convention. I've got a deed to a bridge in the Sahara that I think I could sell to at least 1% of you! And then the OTHER 99% will HAVE to buy it, too! Hobo
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 29, 2006 3:13:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 1, 2006 14:02:52 GMT -4
Speed doesn't explain how two wings with jet engines vaporized into nothing. No, but the impact of the nose that the wing is attached to would explain that the wings and other parts would shatter like a molten wine glass.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 1, 2006 14:07:30 GMT -4
The available evidence is more consistent with a cruise missile attack.Totally untrue. The available evidence is more consistent with an airliner. In order to believe a cruise missile hit the building, the good amount of contrary evidence must either be ignored or claimed to be manufactured. When I worked over at the MIB department I insisted that if they were going to go through all this trouble to fake the plane attack, they should just go ahead and put wings on the cruise missile. But they said part of the fun was watching all the CT's get little hints. Sorry, sick sense of humor.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 4, 2006 10:28:03 GMT -4
I was just wondering If the passengers and crew on flight 77 had families or friends. The big problem for this conspiracy is that it ignores the victims or it tries to imply that the passengers were secret agents or something, I don't get it, I tried, I watched the video and everything. Maybe you can help me out here, What role did the passengers play on flight 77? Victims or Conspirators. Most CT's believe the plane landed in West Virginia and then was replaced with a guided missile or unmanned drone painted to resemble an AA jetliner. The plane disapeared from radar for about (IIRC) 20 minutes because the hijackers turned the transponder off and most of West Virgina doesn't have 'primary' radar coverage which doesn't depend on transponer signals. So their "presto chango" theory is plausible except for the dozens of witnesses who said the saw a large passenger jet and the debris of a 757 found inside and outside the Pentagon. Len
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 4, 2006 11:37:10 GMT -4
How can using anything but a 757 be easier? I'll repeat: if they wanted people to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon then the easiest thing they could have done is use a 757. Anything else just doesn't make sense. It's like you are trying to build a Ford out of Toyota parts... isn't is easier to just use existing Ford parts? Why would they need to use something stealthy when they obviously would have wanted it to be seen? Because hitting the side of a low building, especially without touching the ground, is not an easy feat in a lumbering 757 travelling at 530mph. It's much easier to control a missile. They were more concerned about getting the job done as accurately as possible, not in it being seen. (Remember the hijackers were thoughtful enough to hit the side of the Pentagon that had just finished getting reinforced.) It's much easier to manipulate perceptions and recollections after the event. Funny some CT’s think “ground effect” would have made impossible to fly so LOW and others think it would have been impossible not to have hit the ground. Maybe you guys should conference and get your theories straight! The story is highly suspicious. 1) She was inside the Pentagon in front of her computer with her 3 month old son when the 757 hit the building and they both incurred serious permanent injuries and they were evacuated to a hospital so she never had a chance to see wreckage let alone the plane. Why would the MIS (men in suits) coerce testimony from a witness who wasn't in a position to see anything when there were hundreds of witnesses outside (there was a traffic jam on the highway)? If she had said she saw a plane or wreckage the CTists would easily and rightly been able to discredit her 2) She has given numerous media interviews and never said anything like that. According to a Washington Post reporter who interviewed her “If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back. She hears her injured co-workers calling for help. She sees the shards of metal, the broken furniture and shattered lights jutting dangerously every which way. It feels . . . so real.” [ www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12652-2004Sep10_3.html ]. At first she was an outspoken critic of the 9/11 Commission and was a leading member of a survivors group called 9/11 Citizens Watch that criticized it [ www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=307&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 ], but at a White House ceremony marking the release of their report she said "I came here pessimistic, but I leave here optimistic." [ www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126707,00.html and www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-023339-5520r.htm ]. On another occasion she said, “They didn't have enough funds. They really didn't have the time that they really needed to do a real thorough report. So you have to look at the facts and then say OK, they did the best they could with the time that they had”, [ transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/11/se.02.html ] but once again nothing about being pressured in the hospital. 3) The source of the story in LC is a book by Jim Marrs. Mr. Marrs also believes in control the World by the Illuminati and other secret societies, alien abductions, distant viewing etc. Go ahead google her name till it snows in the Sahara but I doubt you’ll find any articles or interviews where she indicates that she doesn’t think it was a 757 or any sources that doesn’t quote Loose Change or Marrs in which she said she was visited by men in suits while in the hospital let alone that they coerced her to say anything. Len
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 4, 2006 18:04:22 GMT -4
Most CT's believe the plane landed in West Virginia and then was replaced with a guided missile or unmanned drone painted to resemble an AA jetliner. The plane disapeared from radar for about (IIRC) 20 minutes because the hijackers turned the transponder off and most of West Virgina doesn't have 'primary' radar coverage which doesn't depend on transponer signals. So their "presto chango" theory is plausible except for the dozens of witnesses who said the saw a large passenger jet and the debris of a 757 found inside and outside the Pentagon. Len According to the 9/11 Commission report, The reference to radar reconstruction implied that data from ATC radar systems is recorded for later analysis, if necessary. Poking around to see if I could find out if that is so, I found this: www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/grossi.htmSo AA77 was only actually invisible to controllers for a little less than 9 minutes. When its primary radar return once again became visible to them, they didn't see it because they were looking in the wrong place and primary radar doesn't provide identifying information. But the recorded data shows that the plane was tracked continuously, irrespective of what was displayed on controllers' screens or how they interpreted what they saw. Even if the plane could have been switched during that 9-minute window, the evidence of this couldn't have excaped being detected after the fact. That ought to be enough to put paid to CTer's claims about a switcheroo, were it not for the determination of the true CTer to ignore or reject all evidence coming from official sources. BTW, that NTSB page contains a lot of neat information about the history of recording instrumentation for flight. Just the sort of thing that appeals to an electronics geek like me.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 4, 2006 20:26:05 GMT -4
I hope you guys realize that according to most CTs I know, if information doesn't exist on a few select 'objective' web sites, it cannot be considered as evidence against a conspiracy, right?
|
|