Why do people continue to insist that 9/11 was staged?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Um all you have to do is look at the trucks that were pulling away with steel beams, thats taking away evidence that could of been investigated to see what the hell melted the steel beams. Instead it was taken away and sent off to be recycled. Don't see anything wrong with that?
Dutch_Mix
Oh, so that's where all the evidence went, huh? :roll:
Anyway, the jet fuel from the planes didn't have to melt through the beams in order to bring down the towers. The fires simply had to be hot enough so that the structural integrity of the beams would be compromised.
Which is true but how many floors again where burning and for how long? Also how many floors did those floors take out? Think about it. Just think of the 40 something beams in the middle of the building collasping on itself like a preztel and on top of the 80+ floors that crumbled like bread.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]because, believe it or not, there actually evidence to support the argument.
Frankly, I find it stupid to not question 9/11. Are we supposed to feel ashamed for debating such a tragic thing? No, I think its our duty to find out what really happened.
-The buildings imploded
-There have been hardly any terrorist attacks against the US, and zero on this scale, and we are supposed to suddenly believe that, on their first try, two terrorists with training in a Cessna flew two huge airliners precisely into the two buildings? Sorry, thats a bit much to choke down...
-Jet fuel burns hot, yes, but not hot enough to melt all the steel structure inside the bulding. Furthermore, jet fuel could not have sprayed everywhere as it did equally throughout the floors.
-How can a building that supports so much suddenly crumble from the bottom? It defies logic...a building that gets chopped off at a certain floor should collapse and tip over from that floor. It should collapse equally throughout the whole damn building.
-If the terrorists were so smart, why did they attack at a time when hardly anyone was working in the WTC? At its capacity, there were supposed to be 30k+ people in the WTC! A real terrorists would attack then, not before or after.the fact is, its easier to believe our corrupt leaders and think terrorists did it. But honestly; look at Bush, look at Cheney, look at Rumsfeldt and Rove...do you really think it is beyond them to plan a self-serving attack on the US? They have no qualms about publicly supporting the deaths of thousands of US men and women at the moment, do you think they would have issues with secretly sacrificing 3000+ innocent US citizans?
sonicare
None of those points are convincing. There have been several failed or less successful attempts at terrorist attacks against the US. The WTC was bombed several years before 9/11 - they attempted to cause an implosion but failed. There was a bombing attack planned on LAX but the terrorists were stopped. Oklahoma City was bombed resulting in quite a significant loss of life.
The jetliners weren't flown precisely into the WTC - they simply were flown into it. They did not know how to take off or land, merely how to control the plane in flight. Even that, they struggled with.
Your theories on the mechanical collapse are not correct. The fire caused by burning jet fuel can burn quite hot. It doesn't need to melt steel, merely reduce its mechanical strength resulting in mechanical failure. The buildings had already absorbed the impact of a jumbojetliner - the further weakening caused by the fire certainly would cause them to fail. To date, no respectable engineer has disagreed with that.
The terrorists were limited by the time of the flights and type of planes that were available. They needed a large plane that was loaded with fuel for a long flight. They couldn't choose the exact times. The issues on the timing weren't entirely in their hands.
If you look hard enough, you can make up facts to support that it was an inside job. But the majority of facts that are out there do not support that. There is more solid evidence showing that it happened just as we saw.
they couldnt fly plane but they managed to find the way to twin towers and crash?
The same people who deny it are also the same people who came up with the haloucaust denial.
It makes no sense why the government would attack it's own buildings just to go to war. It's incredibly stupid and lacks logic. They have gotten nothing from the war except a humongous debt,a dn crippled the world economy.
Why would the steel need to melt? All you have to do is weaken it enough so that it breaks.Ya but if you knew that it takes 2500 hundred dagrees for steel to melt then you would know that jet fuel does not burn at that temperature. Also you should ask yourself this question. What does it mean when there is black smoke? Enough said.
xscrapzx
There is so much Anti-Bush sentiment in the media right now if there was the fainted bit of hope some reporter would have ran with it to score a Pulitzer.
In the most "Me First" culture in the world, I find it so hard to believe that the media, government, and Citizens of New York could have been in on this without a few creditable people spilling the beans.
The reality is that in the infancy of the Internet Matt Drudge found the last President was nailing an intern, there was creditabily and the media ran with it and feasted on it.
With an approval rating as low as George W. Bush has right now, and the masses that would flood to get the information from news provider X to see him get spanked with legit leads and information would be worth millions upon million in the short term and billions in the long term for that news carrier.
Secrets make for big money and huge fame, and in a conspiracy such as this would have hundreds of people chomping at the bit to get paid.
Money, Fame, Attention > Patriotism
And knowing that people put videos of their kids lighting their laps on fire, or cats attacking grandma on the internet to get their 15 minutes of fame, I find it hard to believe that a concpiracy such as this could go on this long without REAL (not youtube theories) evidence leaking out.
It goes against everything American.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]because, believe it or not, there actually evidence to support the argument.
Frankly, I find it stupid to not question 9/11. Are we supposed to feel ashamed for debating such a tragic thing? No, I think its our duty to find out what really happened.
-The buildings imploded
-There have been hardly any terrorist attacks against the US, and zero on this scale, and we are supposed to suddenly believe that, on their first try, two terrorists with training in a Cessna flew two huge airliners precisely into the two buildings? Sorry, thats a bit much to choke down...
-Jet fuel burns hot, yes, but not hot enough to melt all the steel structure inside the bulding. Furthermore, jet fuel could not have sprayed everywhere as it did equally throughout the floors.
-How can a building that supports so much suddenly crumble from the bottom? It defies logic...a building that gets chopped off at a certain floor should collapse and tip over from that floor. It should collapse equally throughout the whole damn building.
-If the terrorists were so smart, why did they attack at a time when hardly anyone was working in the WTC? At its capacity, there were supposed to be 30k+ people in the WTC! A real terrorists would attack then, not before or after.the fact is, its easier to believe our corrupt leaders and think terrorists did it. But honestly; look at Bush, look at Cheney, look at Rumsfeldt and Rove...do you really think it is beyond them to plan a self-serving attack on the US? They have no qualms about publicly supporting the deaths of thousands of US men and women at the moment, do you think they would have issues with secretly sacrificing 3000+ innocent US citizans?
sonicare
None of those points are convincing. There have been several failed or less successful attempts at terrorist attacks against the US. The WTC was bombed several years before 9/11 - they attempted to cause an implosion but failed. There was a bombing attack planned on LAX but the terrorists were stopped. Oklahoma City was bombed resulting in quite a significant loss of life.
The jetliners weren't flown precisely into the WTC - they simply were flown into it. They did not know how to take off or land, merely how to control the plane in flight. Even that, they struggled with.
Your theories on the mechanical collapse are not correct. The fire caused by burning jet fuel can burn quite hot. It doesn't need to melt steel, merely reduce its mechanical strength resulting in mechanical failure. The buildings had already absorbed the impact of a jumbojetliner - the further weakening caused by the fire certainly would cause them to fail. To date, no respectable engineer has disagreed with that.
The terrorists were limited by the time of the flights and type of planes that were available. They needed a large plane that was loaded with fuel for a long flight. They couldn't choose the exact times. The issues on the timing weren't entirely in their hands.
If you look hard enough, you can make up facts to support that it was an inside job. But the majority of facts that are out there do not support that. There is more solid evidence showing that it happened just as we saw.
hmm those are all excellent points. A couple questions, though:
1. How do you explain the speed at which the structure fell? You would expect the building to fall a lot slower than freefall speed since it would by falling on itself. Does that make sense?
2. The towers were attacked from one side, the point of impact I mean. How do you explain that the buildings imploded and fell down, as opposed to falling over on their weakest side?
3. Now, I am no pilot, but I have read that those planes require a huge amount of space to turn. I.e. to do a full 180 degree turn they need a good solid distance. Compared to the planes rate of turning and accuracy, the towers are a really small target. But two planes struck two seperate targets dead on. Is it impossible? No, but its just seems a little too "good" to be true for the terrorists.
believe it or not, I am not blindly dedicated to thinking 9/11 was an inside job. It just seems that there is more logic and proof to thinking it was an inside job than to thinking it was a terrorist attack.
History may not repeat precisely but it does show parallels. I believe most theorists cite the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Reichstag Fire as major incidents that sparked even larger historical events.MattUD1
Except for the fact that the parallels are rather weak...
There are a lot of coincedences in 9/11, that is hard to look past. George W. Bush was coincendently in Florida and did nothing.
A couple days later, he was asked "What were you doing when the first plane hit the tower". He said he watched it on TV. Why did he have to lie? The footage of the first plane hitting the tower was only captured on one video camera and that was a freelancer and it was released on 9/12.
So why did he lie? Only two possible answers, he didn't want to look stupid because the real answer was "I was picking my nose" or he had cameras staged on the WTCs and he actually saw it on TV.
Makes you wonder.
Also, I find it weird how the pieces of the World Trade Center exploded far away from it into Building 7.
I also find it wierd how there was explosions at the base of the the WTC. If you look at the base during the attacks. It looked like the bottom was attacked, not the top. Glass and tiles were broken everywhere.
Another thing that bothers me was the fact that the WTCs were closed the month before for added security measures. I also find it weird that the Gold at the base of the building was moved further away before the attacks. That's weird.
It's also weird how 9/11 conspiracist claim that it wasn't that hot up there. When the fact is, IT WAS EXTREMELY HOT. People were JUMPING out of the building. Imagine this. How hot can it be, that you would rather fall to your death than say another second in the building.
Weird things happened on 9/11 & following 9/11. Thats why there are conspiaracy theories.
The Bush Administration obviously lied about WMDs. They never found any and they admited to it only 3 years later. After it's too late. Saddam never said he had any. Bush is liar. Thats for sure.
[QUOTE="MattUD1"]History may not repeat precisely but it does show parallels. I believe most theorists cite the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Reichstag Fire as major incidents that sparked even larger historical events.Rhazakna
Except for the fact that the parallels are rather weak...
Give a man an inch and he'll take a mile.Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?xscrapzx
Clearly because the plane crash opened the locker that was housing the bodies from Roswell.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Um all you have to do is look at the trucks that were pulling away with steel beams, thats taking away evidence that could of been investigated to see what the hell melted the steel beams. Instead it was taken away and sent off to be recycled. Don't see anything wrong with that?
Dutch_Mix
Oh, so that's where all the evidence went, huh? :roll:
Anyway, the jet fuel from the planes didn't have to melt through the beams in order to bring down the towers. The fires simply had to be hot enough so that the structural integrity of the beams would be compromised.
Negative.
Most of the jet fuel burned out once the planes made impact in the ensuing fireballs. I doubt there would be enough fuel burning the floors to smithereen to make all 100 floors collapse in under 11 seconds
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Why would the steel need to melt? All you have to do is weaken it enough so that it breaks.Ya but if you knew that it takes 2500 hundred dagrees for steel to melt then you would know that jet fuel does not burn at that temperature. Also you should ask yourself this question. What does it mean when there is black smoke? Enough said.
DeeJayInphinity
Ya a part of the beam might break but do you think that building was that structurely flawed that because part of the beams where weak so it took out the rest of the beam like a preztel? Think of the steal in that building folding like a piece of paper not just one beam but over 40 of them inside the middle of the building. If the pancake theory is correct then that means there were 40+ beams that supported the building in the middle and you mean to tell that the weight of 10+ stories completely anihilated 80+ stories into snow?
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?cosmostein77
Clearly because the plane crash opened the locker that was housing the bodies from Roswell.
sorry that locker is plane proof
[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Um all you have to do is look at the trucks that were pulling away with steel beams, thats taking away evidence that could of been investigated to see what the hell melted the steel beams. Instead it was taken away and sent off to be recycled. Don't see anything wrong with that?
xscrapzx
Oh, so that's where all the evidence went, huh? :roll:
Anyway, the jet fuel from the planes didn't have to melt through the beams in order to bring down the towers. The fires simply had to be hot enough so that the structural integrity of the beams would be compromised.
Which is true but how many floors again where burning and for how long? Also how many floors did those floors take out? Think about it. Just think of the 40 something beams in the middle of the building collasping on itself like a preztel and on top of the 80+ floors that crumbled like bread.
I'm not really sure what type of analogy you're using so I'm going to use one of my own...
The towers fell similar to how an accordian is compressed because you can see as the building collapses on itself, the oxygen is blowing out the windows on each floor. Again, this is because the beams could not support the weight of the floors above the point of impact.
Gosh, I think I've already made this point in similar 9/11 conspiracy threads.
[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="The_Mac_Daddy"].. or an "inside job" by our government? Most rediculous thing ever. Does anybody have that clip from a southpark episode where Bush talks about how it was the most perfectly executed plan ever created, ever. It was almost too easy. LOL.Rhazakna
although i dont believe the government did 911, most people who try to poke fun at the "911 truthers" dont even put together an argument to prove there point. remember simply LUAGHING at people makes it seem like YOU are a sheep.
When they believe something as ridiculous as the towers falling faster than free fall speed (faster than gravity), you can't help but laugh.
well, you can laugh all you want but i mean people should at least justify there beliefs i think. I just hate when someone (regardless of what the belief is) simply laughs and tries to use that as some kind of proof or reason that the other persons view point means nothing.
Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?xscrapzx
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Um all you have to do is look at the trucks that were pulling away with steel beams, thats taking away evidence that could of been investigated to see what the hell melted the steel beams. Instead it was taken away and sent off to be recycled. Don't see anything wrong with that?
Dutch_Mix
Oh, so that's where all the evidence went, huh? :roll:
Anyway, the jet fuel from the planes didn't have to melt through the beams in order to bring down the towers. The fires simply had to be hot enough so that the structural integrity of the beams would be compromised.
Which is true but how many floors again where burning and for how long? Also how many floors did those floors take out? Think about it. Just think of the 40 something beams in the middle of the building collasping on itself like a preztel and on top of the 80+ floors that crumbled like bread.
I'm not really sure what type of analogy you're using so I'm going to use one of my own...
The towers fell similar to how an accordian is compressed because you can see as the building collapses on itself, the oxygen is blowing out the windows on each floor. Again, this is because the beams could not support the weight of the floors above the point of impact.
Gosh, I think I've already made this point in similar 9/11 conspiracy threads.
Thats what I'm trying to say... Do you really believe that 10+ stories that were burning pretty hott, no doubt on that part. Took out 85+ stories below it with ease, with absolutely no resistence of any kind from the floors that is was collapsing on? Not only actually imagining the beams in the middle folding like an according, come on think about that, and you do you really believe if you dropped a piece of concrete from a thousand feet that it would break into powder?
[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Why would the steel need to melt? All you have to do is weaken it enough so that it breaks.Ya but if you knew that it takes 2500 hundred dagrees for steel to melt then you would know that jet fuel does not burn at that temperature. Also you should ask yourself this question. What does it mean when there is black smoke? Enough said.
xscrapzx
Ya a part of the beam might break but do you think that building was that structurely flawed that because part of the beams where weak so it took out the rest of the beam like a preztel? Think of the steal in that building folding like a piece of paper not just one beam but over 40 of them inside the middle of the building. If the pancake theory is correct then that means there were 40+ beams that supported the building in the middle and you mean to tell that the weight of 10+ stories completely anihilated 80+ stories into snow?
:/ You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.. why would the 10 floors need to break all 80 floors at once? It's a domino effect.. the 10 floors fall and on top of one floor, and that floor is incapable of handling all of the load so it breaks, and then the next floor is incapable of handling the load so it breaks as well.. domino effect. The 10 floors did not break the entire building at once. And if you need me to explain kinetic energy as well as weight, I'll explain that to you too..Also.. do you really think only one beam was weakened? No, there were multiple beams under fire, and a few other beams that had been damaged by the initial plane crash.. add all of that damage up and you've got a dozen or so floors slamming into one weakened floor etc.. :?
Simple physics and thermodynamics.
[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]because, believe it or not, there actually evidence to support the argument.
Frankly, I find it stupid to not question 9/11. Are we supposed to feel ashamed for debating such a tragic thing? No, I think its our duty to find out what really happened.
-The buildings imploded
-There have been hardly any terrorist attacks against the US, and zero on this scale, and we are supposed to suddenly believe that, on their first try, two terrorists with training in a Cessna flew two huge airliners precisely into the two buildings? Sorry, thats a bit much to choke down...
-Jet fuel burns hot, yes, but not hot enough to melt all the steel structure inside the bulding. Furthermore, jet fuel could not have sprayed everywhere as it did equally throughout the floors.
-How can a building that supports so much suddenly crumble from the bottom? It defies logic...a building that gets chopped off at a certain floor should collapse and tip over from that floor. It should collapse equally throughout the whole damn building.
-If the terrorists were so smart, why did they attack at a time when hardly anyone was working in the WTC? At its capacity, there were supposed to be 30k+ people in the WTC! A real terrorists would attack then, not before or after.the fact is, its easier to believe our corrupt leaders and think terrorists did it. But honestly; look at Bush, look at Cheney, look at Rumsfeldt and Rove...do you really think it is beyond them to plan a self-serving attack on the US? They have no qualms about publicly supporting the deaths of thousands of US men and women at the moment, do you think they would have issues with secretly sacrificing 3000+ innocent US citizans?
mrbojangles25
None of those points are convincing. There have been several failed or less successful attempts at terrorist attacks against the US. The WTC was bombed several years before 9/11 - they attempted to cause an implosion but failed. There was a bombing attack planned on LAX but the terrorists were stopped. Oklahoma City was bombed resulting in quite a significant loss of life.
The jetliners weren't flown precisely into the WTC - they simply were flown into it. They did not know how to take off or land, merely how to control the plane in flight. Even that, they struggled with.
Your theories on the mechanical collapse are not correct. The fire caused by burning jet fuel can burn quite hot. It doesn't need to melt steel, merely reduce its mechanical strength resulting in mechanical failure. The buildings had already absorbed the impact of a jumbojetliner - the further weakening caused by the fire certainly would cause them to fail. To date, no respectable engineer has disagreed with that.
The terrorists were limited by the time of the flights and type of planes that were available. They needed a large plane that was loaded with fuel for a long flight. They couldn't choose the exact times. The issues on the timing weren't entirely in their hands.
If you look hard enough, you can make up facts to support that it was an inside job. But the majority of facts that are out there do not support that. There is more solid evidence showing that it happened just as we saw.
hmm those are all excellent points. A couple questions, though:
1. How do you explain the speed at which the structure fell? You would expect the building to fall a lot slower than freefall speed since it would by falling on itself. Does that make sense?
2. The towers were attacked from one side, the point of impact I mean. How do you explain that the buildings imploded and fell down, as opposed to falling over on their weakest side?
3. Now, I am no pilot, but I have read that those planes require a huge amount of space to turn. I.e. to do a full 180 degree turn they need a good solid distance. Compared to the planes rate of turning and accuracy, the towers are a really small target. But two planes struck two seperate targets dead on. Is it impossible? No, but its just seems a little too "good" to be true for the terrorists.
believe it or not, I am not blindly dedicated to thinking 9/11 was an inside job. It just seems that there is more logic and proof to thinking it was an inside job than to thinking it was a terrorist attack.
1. When things fall, they usually fall at the speed of gravity.
2. It was not the impact that made the towers collapsed, but the total destruction wrought by the fires AND the impacts. Those towers were not built to withstand that amount of damage. They were built to withstand high winds, not fires and airplane collisions.
3. I'm assuming that the terrorists knew how to use a compass. If they were willing to go through all the trouble of planning the attack, then I'm sure they would know exactly where to go. They didn't have to fly to Manhatten and then look for the towers, they already knew exactly what bearing they needed to take.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?Dutch_Mix
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
If video is available, you'd figure they'd show it instead of a Before & After screenshot
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?Dutch_Mix
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
Hello are you alright?!?! What do you mean does the government actually have to tell me everything, if people are hi-jacking planes and killing the citizens of the United States I think I have a damn right to know, considering my hard earned 4 months of wages is going to these clowns to make sure I'm safe. I want to know the goddamn truth, not some stupid ridiculous 2 second clip of nothing hitting 5 layers of steel reinforced concrete and penetrating all the way to the middle of the pentagon court yard and telling me its a boeing 747, and then not showing me the damn plane hitting the building. Then holding the tape for 5 years and then letting it out to the public with it being tampered with. Are you serious? :|
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Why would the steel need to melt? All you have to do is weaken it enough so that it breaks.Ya but if you knew that it takes 2500 hundred dagrees for steel to melt then you would know that jet fuel does not burn at that temperature. Also you should ask yourself this question. What does it mean when there is black smoke? Enough said.
DeeJayInphinity
Ya a part of the beam might break but do you think that building was that structurely flawed that because part of the beams where weak so it took out the rest of the beam like a preztel? Think of the steal in that building folding like a piece of paper not just one beam but over 40 of them inside the middle of the building. If the pancake theory is correct then that means there were 40+ beams that supported the building in the middle and you mean to tell that the weight of 10+ stories completely anihilated 80+ stories into snow?
:/ You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.. why would the 10 floors need to break all 80 floors at once? It's a domino effect.. the 10 floors fall and on top of one floor, and that floor is incapable of handling all of the load so it breaks, and then the next floor is incapable of handling the load so it breaks as well.. domino effect. The 10 floors did not break the entire building at once. And if you need me to explain kinetic energy as well as weight, I'll explain that to you too..Also.. do you really think only one beam was weakened? No, there were multiple beams under fire, and a few other beams that had been damaged by the initial plane crash.. add all of that damage up and you've got a dozen or so floors slamming into one weakened floor etc.. :?
Simple physics and thermodynamics.
Dude the building fell at FREE FALL SPEED that is like dropping a baseball from the same height and the building meeting on that ground at the same time! Do you really believe a build of that size have 10+ of its floors taking out 80+ at that speed? I don't think so.
[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?xscrapzx
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
Hello are you alright?!?! What do you mean does the government actually have to tell me everything, if people are hi-jacking planes and killing the citizens of the United States I think I have a damn right to now, considering my hard earned 4 months of wages is going to these clowns to make sure I'm safe. I want to know that goddamn truth, not some stupid ridiculous 2 second clip of nothing hitting 5 layers of steel reinforced concrete and penetrating all the way to the middle of the pentagon court yard and telling me its a boeing 747.
Yeah, okay, but you still haven't explained to me why it's automatically a conspiracy. :roll: Nor have you addressed my point of not requiring the video in order to prove a plane struck The Pentagon.
3. Now, I am no pilot, but I have read that those planes require a huge amount of space to turn. I.e. to do a full 180 degree turn they need a good solid distance. Compared to the planes rate of turning and accuracy, the towers are a really small target. But two planes struck two seperate targets dead on. Is it impossible? No, but its just seems a little too "good" to be true for the terrorists. believe it or not, I am not blindly dedicated to thinking 9/11 was an inside job. It just seems that there is more logic and proof to thinking it was an inside job than to thinking it was a terrorist attack.mrbojangles25If you're no pilot and you've never flown a plane, why are you talking about the turning radius of said plane? :lol: And you do realize that the empire building was struck by a plane right? Struck by a plane being piloted by a guy who couldn't see ****. Also, those terrorists obviously knew how to pilot aircraft, and even their instructors said that they only knew how to fly aircraft but not land them.
DUDE there's a concept knows as kinetic energy! :o It's this crazy thing were there's like additional energy for a body in motion and stuff, and coupled with the original weight of the material that made up the towers, you've got a ****load of energy slamming into the rest of the building. It's crazy stuff, I know, but you can handle it.Dude the building fell at FREE FALL SPEED that is like dropping a baseball from the same height and the building meeting on that ground at the same time! Do you really believe a build of that size have 10+ of its floors taking out 80+ at that speed? I don't think so.
xscrapzx
Also, the building did not fall at free fall speed..
3. I'm assuming that the terrorists knew how to use a compass. If they were willing to go through all the trouble of planning the attack, then I'm sure they would know exactly where to go. They didn't have to fly to Manhatten and then look for the towers, they already knew exactly what bearing they needed to take. _Jasper_
Even if they did have to "look for the towers", it's not that difficult to pick them out of the skyline.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?Dutch_Mix
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
Hello are you alright?!?! What do you mean does the government actually have to tell me everything, if people are hi-jacking planes and killing the citizens of the United States I think I have a damn right to now, considering my hard earned 4 months of wages is going to these clowns to make sure I'm safe. I want to know that goddamn truth, not some stupid ridiculous 2 second clip of nothing hitting 5 layers of steel reinforced concrete and penetrating all the way to the middle of the pentagon court yard and telling me its a boeing 747.
Yeah, okay, but you still haven't explained to me why it's automatically a conspiracy. :roll: Nor have you addressed my point of not requiring the video in order to prove a plane struck The Pentagon.
Look its a known fact that the government confiscated surrounding servaliance tapes of local gas stations and stores near the pentagon after the attack happened, its also a know fact that they took away the security tape of the enterence of the pentagon and they released it back in the spring of '06. Now my whole thing is if you know for a fact that a plane hit that dman building and you have tons of video of footage claiming it to be fact, why do you take it away and the only video you show is finally release 5 years later, showing that it is clearly been tampered with?
There were dozens of people who witnessed the plane slam into the pentagon.. it doesn't even make sense for the gov to switch the plane for anything else. You're just being difficult.Look its a known fact that the government confiscated surrounding servaliance tapes of local gas stations and stores near the pentagon after the attack happened, its also a know fact that they took away the security tape of the enterence of the pentagon and they released it back in the spring of '06. Now my whole thing is if you know for a fact that a plane hit that dman building and you have tons of video of footage claiming it to be fact, why do you take it away and the only video you show is finally release 5 years later, showing that it is clearly tampered with?
xscrapzx
Or don't tell me that the government suddenly decided to use something else? A missile? Why make everything more complicated than it already is? Why give people like you additional hints? "Oh yeah guys umm let's give those college kids a hint by using a missile instead, it'll be fun com'on!"
You're acting as if the gov is incompetent.
[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?xscrapzx
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
Hello are you alright?!?! What do you mean does the government actually have to tell me everything, if people are hi-jacking planes and killing the citizens of the United States I think I have a damn right to now, considering my hard earned 4 months of wages is going to these clowns to make sure I'm safe. I want to know that goddamn truth, not some stupid ridiculous 2 second clip of nothing hitting 5 layers of steel reinforced concrete and penetrating all the way to the middle of the pentagon court yard and telling me its a boeing 747.
Yeah, okay, but you still haven't explained to me why it's automatically a conspiracy. :roll: Nor have you addressed my point of not requiring the video in order to prove a plane struck The Pentagon.
Look its a known fact that the government confiscated surrounding servaliance tapes of local gas stations and stores near the pentagon after the attack happened, its also a know fact that they took away the security tape of the enterence of the pentagon and they released it back in the spring of '06. Now my whole thing is if you know for a fact that a plane hit that dman building and you have tons of video of footage claiming it to be fact, why do you take it away and the only video you show is finally release 5 years later, showing that it is clearly tampered with?
You don't need a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon to prove that it did in fact hit the building...
How do you know the video has been "clearly tampered with" if you've never seen it before? :lol:
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]There were dozens of people who witnessed the plane slam into the pentagon.. it doesn't even make sense for the gov to switch the plane for anything else. You're just being difficult.Look its a known fact that the government confiscated surrounding servaliance tapes of local gas stations and stores near the pentagon after the attack happened, its also a know fact that they took away the security tape of the enterence of the pentagon and they released it back in the spring of '06. Now my whole thing is if you know for a fact that a plane hit that dman building and you have tons of video of footage claiming it to be fact, why do you take it away and the only video you show is finally release 5 years later, showing that it is clearly tampered with?
DeeJayInphinity
Or don't tell me that the government suddenly decided to use something else? A missile? Why make everything more complicated than it already is? Why give people like you additional hints? "Oh yeah guys umm let's give those college kids a hint by using a missile instead, it'll be fun com'on!"
You're acting as if the gov is incompetent.
Why don't you answer the question? Why take away footage of a so called plane hitting building to prove something and then not show it, or take all the footage away and never release any of it, but release one video clip of 2-5 second footage of an explotion, that doesn't make you wonder why the hell they would do that?
[QUOTE="edd678"]Convincing doucumentaries on it. Like i watched a film/documentary on how 9/11 was a conspiracy (no it wasnt farenheit 9/11) and it has seriously made me wonder. So many things dont add up.Dutch_Mix
I do hope you're not referring to "Loose Change". :roll:
what if he is?
Looks like a job for
Wetall_basic
Oh I would love to see that episode!
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]Oh and one more thing if a plane hit the pentagon then why confiscate all the videos showing the plane hitting the building? Why take it away and then 3-5 years later finally let the video tape out to the public and have it showing a two second clip of a the pentagon exploding with no visual evidence of a boeing hitting that building? I'm sorry but that is complete bull. Whats the excuse for that?Dutch_Mix
Why does the government have to tell you everything? Why does not showing the tape automatically make it "teh conspiracy!!!"? :|
And besides, you don't need a video of the plane hitting the building to prove that a plane did in fact strike the Pentagon.
Hello are you alright?!?! What do you mean does the government actually have to tell me everything, if people are hi-jacking planes and killing the citizens of the United States I think I have a damn right to now, considering my hard earned 4 months of wages is going to these clowns to make sure I'm safe. I want to know that goddamn truth, not some stupid ridiculous 2 second clip of nothing hitting 5 layers of steel reinforced concrete and penetrating all the way to the middle of the pentagon court yard and telling me its a boeing 747.
Yeah, okay, but you still haven't explained to me why it's automatically a conspiracy. :roll: Nor have you addressed my point of not requiring the video in order to prove a plane struck The Pentagon.
Look its a known fact that the government confiscated surrounding servaliance tapes of local gas stations and stores near the pentagon after the attack happened, its also a know fact that they took away the security tape of the enterence of the pentagon and they released it back in the spring of '06. Now my whole thing is if you know for a fact that a plane hit that dman building and you have tons of video of footage claiming it to be fact, why do you take it away and the only video you show is finally release 5 years later, showing that it is clearly tampered with?
You don't need a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon to prove that it did in fact hit the building...
How do you know the video has been "clearly tampered with" if you've never seen it before? :lol:
If you read it clearly they released the video 2 years ago, and if you watch it you can clearly see frames where cut out of the actual video! :roll:
I'm sure they have their reasons.. crime scene footage is always confiscated and not always released.Why don't you answer the question? Why take away footage of a so called plane hitting building to prove something and then not show it, or take all the footage away and never release any of it, but release one video clip of 2-5 second footage of an explotion, that doesn't make you wonder why the hell they would do that?
xscrapzx
But why don't you answer the questions? Why make everything more complicated? And what does the footage have to do with any of this? There were witnesses.. there's a highway near the pentagon as well as other streets and pedestrians.. people SAW the plane and some people SAW the plane hit. How dense can you be? Seriously..
[QUOTE="edd678"]Convincing doucumentaries on it. Like i watched a film/documentary on how 9/11 was a conspiracy (no it wasnt farenheit 9/11) and it has seriously made me wonder. So many things dont add up.Dutch_Mix
I do hope you're not referring to "Loose Change". :roll:
Nah thats not the name of it. Was a really good one that really made me question wether the goverment was involved.
How do you know scenes were taken out? It was probably the cheap surveillance camera skipping around. :roll: I saw the footage as well and it was extremely poor quality.. on par with most of the cameras in use today.If you read it clearly they released the video 2 years ago, and if you watch it you can clearly see frames where cut out of the actual video! :roll:
xscrapzx
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment