Rodney Trotter Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 If your into all the conspiracy stuff check this link http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abracadabra Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 tres dodgy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tue skinny Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 i wonder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swif1 Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 the matrix has them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sectorTVA Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 interesting....in the recently released photo sequence of events you cant see the aircraft comming in, they say thats because it was traveling so fast...but who knows....supposedly the FBI has a video (not a photo sequence) of the actual 'crash' happening, but who knows when that will be released.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abracadabra Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Originally posted by sectorTVA supposedly the FBI has a video (not a photo sequence) of the actual 'crash' happening, but who knows when that will be released.... they have to wait till the computer animation guys finish creating it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Trotter Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 Originally posted by Mr. ABC they have to wait till the computer animation guys finish creating it Exactamundo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest im not witty Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 i mean, who says the plane had to come in straight on towards the building with like 10 feet of clearing off the ground. maybe they flew in nose first at a 90 degree angle or tilted to one side. all those diagrams have it coming in straight, which i think would be very hard to do seeing as how the building is not that high. i mean its not the huge hundred stories tall trade center, its basically like a really really big house. but hey what do i know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 huh... its also pretty fishy that of that whole building, the plane hit the one section that was under construction, so it was basiclly devoid of people. also, the world trade center attack gets all the press, but no one ever mentions the pentagon....ever, you'd think that our government being the oportunistic propaganda machine that is is, would be trying to exploit every possible angle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 there has definitely been a lot of talk about all that business around my way.. i did find it strange that there was barely any footage released, BUT...i personally KNOW 2 people who actually WITNESSED the plane crashing into the building lots of citizens around d.c. saw it.. it was busy morning in d.c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 even if you can somehow ignore the pictures that have the building completely intact, with no big gaping hole in it, you're still stuck with the physical logistics of a plane hitting such a small building. if it came in on an angle, there would be a giant gash in the ground, where the wing hit. when the planes hit the trade center, a building designed to defend against such a thing, they still went clear through it. but at the pentagon, it either didnt penetrate at all, or it barely made it through a structure no more sound than your average high school. kinda makes ya go... huh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 no more sound than a high school? the pentagon was designed with 5 rings of buildings to be as impenetrable as possible.. come on..this is a government structure designed to house some of our most secret government agencies..second only to langley now you really think all those 25,000 dollar hammers weren't going in to making this building secure? and of all the pictures i saw of the trade center, none seemed to show the planes clearing the buildings..what i saw was planes exploding on impact, especially the first one, which just did a nose dive into the building..that plane did not come out the other side.. the second plane looked like it would have gone all the way through had it not exploded... ....i think the real conspiracy is covering up what happened to the jet that crashed into that nyc borough neighborhood, killing everyone on board and a few people on the ground..apparantly the tail of the plane just fell off..something the NTSB has admitted to never seeing before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 most high schools, in the 50 and 60's, were designed to act also as fallout shelters. and yes, the pentagon was designed to be more secure with its rings, but what makes it secure, is the number of rings, not just the rings themselfs. the most important stuff is on the inside ring. the planes did not come out on the other side of the trade center intact, but they did blow a hole straight through the building, with shrapnel coming out the other side. in those flics, not only is there no shrapnel, but there is a hole half the size of an airplane, and doing not nearly the damage that it should have. those planes collapsed the wtc, but it barely touched the pentagon. the only explanation for the lack of damage would be if it hit the ground first, thus lessening the impact, but that clearly didnt happen. are2, im not saying that your wrong or anything, just that logistics is not in the governments favor on this one. nor is their track record of lying, deceitful activities. i mean, how can you explain the pictures where this is no hole at all? or the fact that the hole that is there, has a giant piece of the front of the building, folding over, outwards, not at all the type of destruction that would result from a plane crashing into it. finally, if the wtc planes fuel burned so hot as to melt the concrete, why is the pentagon barely charred? yes, there were fire engines, but you cant just put out a gas fire by spraying some water on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 word..our government is fucking shady we can all agree on that i think ..and it did smolder for about 3-4 days after the crash..trust me, it was all over the local news here.. not as many people died..i think that's another reason we haven't seen as much media coverage.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 true, but since when has the lack of deaths stopped our governments tirades? there was plenty of death in that ny neighborhood, but they wont discuss it, why should we think that a pentagon body count is any more reliable? you know that our government loves to exploit the shit out of any possible angle they can, so when they dont exploit something, its incredibly suspect. like for instance the facts that george W's first oil company was funded largely by the binladen family. or the fact that in the 3 days after the attacks when no planes were allowed to fly, there was a plane sent around to 5 american cities to pick up bin laden family members. of course our government is not discussing that. and im not saying that those family members had anything to do with the attacks, but they should atleast have been questioned. i dont know.. im not much for conspiracy theorys, cause i dont really need them. i know our government is completely fucked, and honestly, i tend to think their antics, in some cases, extend well beyond even the wackiest conspiracy theory. oh, and ps, those 25 thousand dollar hammers went to fund the contras, the iranians and anyone else reagan saw fit to give money too, not to actually buy a hammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 this doesnt deserve its own thread... but imma share it anyways i live next to an airpot, an their flying tons of fucking helicopters in for some reason. not regular ones either, like blackhawks an shit, this one will be the fifth to come in an land. we all know they don't circle to land so its not the same one. two more have flown in during the time of me writing this. anyways, there my two cents, if some shit goes down, you heard it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 ok, i figured out whats goin on, there are three total, one has landed at the airport and 2 are circling around it with some bigass fucking guns out. its pretty neato, but then again it sucks cause their shaking my house everytime the go by cause their all low an shit. but i know if some shit goes down, im safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 Originally posted by seeking innocence oh, and ps, those 25 thousand dollar hammers went to fund the contras, the iranians and anyone else reagan saw fit to give money too, not to actually buy a hammer. ..duh don't forget about "star wars" a moronic project currently being brought back by dubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 yeah, i figured you knew that, i was stating it more for the benefit of the rest of the class. :) dubya is a jack ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mang Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 it's kind of sad how nobody gives a shit or remembers about the pantagon. they just boo hoo about the world trade center. "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?" - i can take a guess. the pentagon is one of america's most important military buildings. i'm sure they built it extremely well and reinforced it like crazy. if you dropped tanks on it it probably wouldn't do as much damage as you expected. "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?" - yes. aliens. "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?" - possibly to prevent a fire or something of that nature? no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 now that i look at all these photos it seems pretty strange that you cant see any part of an airplane , and in the pictures of the explosion that were released you cant see any plane either , and why didnt they just release the whole stream of pictures , not just three in sequence........ but on the other hand , the pentagon is probably the most impenetrable structure in north america , perhaps even the world ........so i guess its possible that the plane just disintegrated upon impact.............:confused: i dont know im confused now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mang Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 planes can decentegrate. i saw a tv program that showed an f-4 phantom fighter jet slam into a really thick wall and it disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dazzle Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 I don't even want to try....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iCEBERG Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?" - possibly to prevent a fire or something of that nature? no idea. - mang i thought along the same lines to, how easy is it to drive a fucking bigass firetruck over dirt and grass? answer: not very easy. who needs the rescue teams getting stuck in dirt and grass. incase the author of the webpage didn't know, rescue vehicles are extremely heavy, and soil an grass isn't extremely the best surface to drive frantically around on trying to put out fires in bigass trucks that would slide all over the place and hit people and other trucks and some more people if the weren't already stuck in the grass. whatever the hell that meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/facade-intacte-1.jpg'> this is where the plane hit, where is the hole? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg'> oh, heres the hole. well, the plane was 42 feet tall. thats about the equivelant of a 4 story building. its wing span was roughly 153 feet. does that hole look 150 feet wide to you? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/effondrement2.jpg'> and lets talk about the hole, notice the big piece of wall panel, that is falling outward? if a plane flew into the wall, the wall would not fall backwards, opposit of the direction of force. im not worried about the sand and gravel, that doesnt seem like a big deal. if a plane HAD hit the building, the fuel would have of course spilled onto the grass burning it, so thats not surpising. the claim that the ground might not be sturdy enough to withstand the weight of a firetruck is ridiculous, certainly the most 'sturdy' building in the world is built on an equaly sturdy foundation. i do however, think its odd that they would cover over the ground, considering that there might be bodie parts, plane debris, etc out there. except there wasnt, cause you cant see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg'> this picture shows it the best to me , not only can i not see even a small trace of a huge airplane , i looks like there was an explosion ,and the building simply collapsed upon itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sneak Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 man i fell sorry for u all. ur government is obviously tring to cover sumthin up. we dont no y, probbly never will. personally, i wuda thought that a plane hitting a building would have caused a hell of a lot more fuckin damage than justa fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mang Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg'> what a bunch of idiots! the plane is right there - intact! i think those damn communists painted it red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 haha. another thing that is fishy, is the fact that we have never seen a single video image of the plane hitting. for a month, 24 hours a day, all we saw were the pictures of the plane hitting the tours... i have a real hard time believing that no one got video of the pentagon. i mean, my local wallmart has cameras that pan the whole parkinglot, you gonna try and tell me that my local super store has a more thurough security system than the fucking pentagon? diggidy, iggidy, doubtfull. if we have satellites that can read your pack of cigarettes from space, we sure as fuck have a camera pointed at the pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest platapie Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 yes indeed there are some fish tacos cooking on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.