|
Post by Cavorite on Jan 30, 2007 22:05:29 GMT -4
If we don't have a continuous video starting at the time of the crash, we can't say nobody carried some parts out to the lawn in the cover of smoke. Given that you seem committed to the notion that all the physical evidence at the Pentagon was planted, would you care to address the question about why this efficient faking machine wasn't used in Iraq? This comes down to Occam's Razor again. You can postulate a remarkably efficient fakery operation able to move large amounts of material under people’s noses, working with astonishing swiftness in dangerous conditions, but you then have to explain why this incredibly useful capability was not employed elsewhere when it would have really been helpful to the Powers That Be. If 9/11 really was a staged event to pave the way for the New World Order, then the total lack of WMDs in Iraq really undid a lot of the ‘good work’ that the conspirators strove so hard for. Think about it – if some WMDs had been found, then TPTB would be able to keep everyone in fear for many years by insinuating that they couldn’t be sure that all the weapons had been found – so you’d better play along with our plan, because Osama is out there somewhere hugging a big drum of sarin and laughing maniacally. It would have given them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to. And yet, the opposite has happened – no WMDs, embarrassment for the architects of the war, and growing distrust amongst the people. So, given that planting WMDs would be much, much easier than faking the Pentagon debris, why wasn’t this done?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2007 22:48:54 GMT -4
Indeed, the lack of evidence of WMDs in Iraq is the torpedo that sinks any idea that 9/11 was in any way staged by the Bush Administration.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 31, 2007 0:35:54 GMT -4
They wouldn't even have to work terribly hard to do it either - there are two or three facilites in the US dedicated to incinerating our old stockpiles of mustard gas and nerve agents. They could have just used some of that stuff.
And then there's the anthrax. How come nobody here is interested in the post-9/11 anthrax attack? That's one of the biggest mysteries of the last decade!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2007 1:13:25 GMT -4
In fact I live not very far from one of those incinerator facilities - the Dugway Proving Grounds. Lots of nasty stuff out there that Saddam would have loved to have.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 31, 2007 10:23:49 GMT -4
Consider this, Rocky:
You have said you do not have the mathmatical prowess to analyze the photos, detirmining how the plane ought to appear in the video. An analysis for you was done during your visit to BAUT. You ignorned that analysis. For what reason did you ignore it, even though you lacked the skills to provide a rebuttal?
Can you show us with your own analysis as to how one of the objects you suggest would look in that video? You must consider the distance from the camera to the object, as well as the angle of approach relative to the face of the building, and the length of the aircraft. I'm sure if you have friends that are knowledgable in trigonometry (or other relevent maths) that you can get an answer.
The more I think of people planting evidence of a 757 have crashed, the more ridiculous it seems. As I mentioned, the "planters" would have to have a firefighter's ensamble, so that they are protected from the smoke, flames and heat of the fire. That ensamle consists of a rather stiff, thick pair of coveralls. They're the consistency of thick leather. The boots they wear come up to the shins. If you visit a firehouse, you might see these things. I'm sure a tour ought to suit you. And let's not forget the air tank now used; it's metal and about the size of a 2-liter bottle.
Now, think of all the many parts that make up a 757. The engines are no lightweights, that's for sure. You'd need a machine to haul it, in fact. And this must be done twice, because you have two engines. Then you have the framework and the skin of the plane. That's an aweful lot of metal pieces to carry, as you have to provide for the length and width of the plane. And that's just the outer hull. You have all the hydraulics and electrical equipment inside the plane as well. Then, you have all the chairs. I say a hundred, for starters.
And let's not forget the luggage. I imagine you've been to an airport. Does it seem easy for those workers to move that luggage about?
And then, you have the bodies. Yes, bodies were found. No, I won't post them hear, because the ProBoards rules likely forbid graphic images. Anothe user was banned from this site for doing such a thing. I have no intention of doing such a thing. You'll just have to do your own web search. I'm sure you can handle it.
So, is it plausible for all the above to have been planted, without anyone noticing anything strange? Not a snowball's chance in Miami during the summer.
Show me how this all could've been done. And provide the evidence that it was done as well. If you can't, then I must rely on Occam's Razor, and cut away this portion of your wild hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 31, 2007 16:14:52 GMT -4
I just showed my best friend the picture in question. Note that she doesn't really care about CTs and just kind of humours me when she's in a good enough mood to.
She wanted to know exactly what it was a picture of, since I didn't give her any setup. I guess she meant it was kind of blurry and unclear, huh?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 31, 2007 18:48:30 GMT -4
Of course there is the really big question. Why, if you were going to set up a terrorist event so you could invade Iraq and steal their oil, would you turn around and blame if on a bunch of Suadi's, Yemenise and an Egyptian who had absolutely no connection whatsoever with Iraq? Surely if you wanting to set up Iraq, you'd claim it was done by a bunch of Iraqi's under Saddam's instructions, not a buch of non-Iraqi Arabs under Osama's instructions.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 31, 2007 19:55:48 GMT -4
Of course there is the really big question. Why, if you were going to set up a terrorist event so you could invade Iraq and steal their oil, would you turn around and blame if on a bunch of Suadi's, Yemenise and an Egyptian who had absolutely no connection whatsoever with Iraq? Surely if you wanting to set up Iraq, you'd claim it was done by a bunch of Iraqi's under Saddam's instructions, not a buch of non-Iraqi Arabs under Osama's instructions. Well obviously, so later you can make a bunch of claims about WMDs as a further pretext then when none are found, make your country look like its run by a bunch of fools. Makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 1, 2007 1:10:26 GMT -4
Ahhh, I see, it's a cunning plot my lord, we make ourself look so stupid after the event that no one in their right minds would think we are really the same omnipotent ones that pulled off 9/11 so perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 1, 2007 4:53:13 GMT -4
That's so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 1, 2007 8:33:37 GMT -4
I don't know why I'm bothering but maybe just maybe they didn't want to discover canisters with made in the USA written all over the damn things. www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.htmlIt was OK to use this crap against evil Iranians.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Feb 1, 2007 8:59:46 GMT -4
I don't know why I'm bothering but maybe just maybe they didn't want to discover canisters with made in the USA written all over the damn things. Maybe just maybe they would have been smart enough to repackage them. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it as a response. If they could carry out a huge evidence plant at the Pentagon, complete with DNA-matching mutilated remains, large chunks of engine, and bits complete with serial numbers, then they can probably manage to create a convincing "Iraqi chemical weapons program" of equal verisimilitude. I'm not sure why you bothered either.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 1, 2007 9:25:41 GMT -4
I don't know why I'm bothering but maybe just maybe they didn't want to discover canisters with made in the USA written all over the damn things. I can't imagine why not. Isn't it common knowledge that we gave Saddam Hussein's government weaponry in the 80s? Since he wasn't supposed to have the stuff at all, it does not logically matter who made it. Just that it was there. Look, I'd love to believe my boyfriend is over there for some good reason, so even though I pride myself on my critical thinking skills, I might be tempted to believe a WMD find. However, there wasn't one, and it would be awfully easy to fake, especially relative to a plane crash. And I know that he's over there because an actual attack on the US was warped into an unprovoked attack on another country. Isn't that a big enough thing to fight against? In fact, in some ways, isn't that worse? After all, we're ignoring a very real threat to our country's well-being to be in a country that doesn't want us, fighting their civil war, instead.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 1, 2007 17:32:36 GMT -4
Isn't it common knowledge that we gave Saddam Hussein's government weaponry in the 80s?
It might be common knowledge, but like most common knowledge, it's wrong. Iraq was supplied weapons by France, Germany, Russia and China. The US supplies agro-chemicals, that were likely converted to chemical weapons, and satellite data on Iranian positions. A few british companies supplied items that were likely to have been converted into weaponry too.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 1, 2007 23:04:19 GMT -4
Isn't it common knowledge that we gave Saddam Hussein's government weaponry in the 80s?It might be common knowledge, but like most common knowledge, it's wrong. Iraq was supplied weapons by France, Germany, Russia and China. The US supplies agro-chemicals, that were likely converted to chemical weapons, and satellite data on Iranian positions. A few british companies supplied items that were likely to have been converted into weaponry too. What the hell, some rusty old T55's can't compare to the supply of seed stock for the production of biological weapons. cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htmTo say the British and Americans are innocent is just ridiculous, Saddam was their boy on the front against the Barbarian horde. Iraq Lobbies for Arms www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
|
|