The war on freedom

[lilcountriegal]

Heres one for you:
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

THANK YOU!! That was exactly what I was looking for.

Why am I not surprised to find out that it was France who initiated the rumor that the American government was behind the attacks.

And for those who were wondering about the "where do they say the plane/people on the plane went"... they dont say. They just say "the government knows and needs to come clean".

 

[DKSuddeth]

THANK YOU!! That was exactly what I was looking for.

Why am I not surprised to find out that it was France who initiated the rumor that the American government was behind the attacks.

And for those who were wondering about the "where do they say the plane/people on the plane went"... they dont say. They just say "the government knows and needs to come clean".

when this first came out, november 01?, there was speculation that the passengers were killed and disposed of, but nobody can say where.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Go to my link... scroll down about half way... examine airplane debris on lawn.

I actually linked that snopes article in my post too Comrade. I scanned through the pictures and didnt read the captions near them, thanks for pointing that out. Airplane debris most definitely there.

Daniel?

 

[lilcountriegal]

when this first came out, november 01?, there was speculation that the passengers were killed and disposed of, but nobody can say where.

Hell, I hadnt heard any of that. And getting any information/answers to questions out of these conspiracy theorists is like pulling friggin teeth.

 

[CSM]

THANK YOU!! That was exactly what I was looking for.

Why am I not surprised to find out that it was France who initiated the rumor that the American government was behind the attacks.

And for those who were wondering about the "where do they say the plane/people on the plane went"... they dont say. They just say "the government knows and needs to come clean".

Heck, I can't find one pair of matching socks in my dresser drawers and you want me to explain where three airplanes and their passengers went????

 

[EdwinJayMorgan]

I'm back! And yes, I'm one of the participants from Unknown Country.

It's been all day since I posted last! Long day at work, plus errands and my home crowd over at UC.

So... last things first!

As for the pentagon, i would like to know how a hijacker who had very limited flying experience could fly a 757 with precision accuracy into the pentagon, and to top that, make a hole only 16x20 and if the plane did hit the ground before impact, where is the crater?? a 757 has a wingspan of 150ft...

Where is the footage of the plane going into the building? afterall the pentagon is the most protected building in the US, cameras everywhere but somehow we dont have any footage of the plane hitting. I find this strange.

Once again look at the pictures

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I took a good look at the pictures...

Picture 1: No plane yet.

Picture 2: Exhaust trail and fireball with airplane and building shrapnel.

Picture 3: Fireball expands.

OK we have no footage of the plane actually hitting. Just bad timing on the automatic camera's part. Or if it was video, perhaps citoyens simply "forgot" to include it in their webpage!

But I do remember live news footage of a broken, burning plane in front of that section of the Pentagon...

Sorry, Daniel, but you can't convince me of a missile attack...

 

[EdwinJayMorgan]

I'm assuming you're from the "other" board. If so, welcome. If not, welcome.

I'm having a little problem following your post. In the beginning, you discredit the "conspiracy theory" of cargo planes hitting the tower and missles hitting the Pentagon. Then you end your post by subtly (sp?) suggesting the government had something to do with it.

What do you think happened?

I believe the Gov't was unwittingly doing a major flub-up (see your post no. 1496 - and there's a lot more about this flub-up which I need not go into detail). I believe it could have handled the situation a lot better. But I know the Gov't did at least one thing right by grounding all the planes. There was a fifth group operatives who were arrested at an airport after getting off a plane - and they were found to have box-cutters on them.

But could there have been a successfully executed conspiracy by... the French???? After all, they started the conspiracy rumor!

Can't seem to find a tongue-in-cheek smiley... sh*t.

BTW I am from the other board.

 

[Comrade]

I believe the Gov't was unwittingly doing a major flub-up (see your post no. 1496 - and there's a lot more about this flub-up which I need not go into detail). I believe it could have handled the situation a lot better. But I know the Gov't did at least one thing right by grounding all the planes. There was a fifth group operatives who were arrested at an airport after getting off a plane - and they were found to have box-cutters on them.

But could there have been a successfully executed conspiracy by... the French???? After all, they started the conspiracy rumor!

Can't seem to find a tongue-in-cheek smiley... sh*t.

BTW I am from the other board.

Welcome, BTW. I'm trying to understand who still doubts that a 747 crashed into the Pentagon still.

I did watch an interview of a witness who actually watched as the plane flew low and impacted into the Pentagon. I'd say she seemed convincing and honest in her description.

We can't deny the impacts on the WTC, especially when both planes were captured on film (the first during an interview of the NYC fireman).

And if that leaves leaves the Pentagon alone in doubt, I wonder what's the point? It's an afterthought to most people, who talk of 9-11 and the towers, rarely mentioning that third impact. To me, I think it's not even worth a conspiracy theory. To what end?

 

[popefumanchu]

I don't understand all of this conspiracy theory crap. You saw the footage. The towers fell down. If there is any doubt, rely on the ol' standby, "the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

 

[Comrade]

I don't understand all of this conspiracy theory crap. You saw the footage. The towers fell down. If there is any doubt, rely on the ol' standby, "the simplest answer is usually the correct one."

Occam's Razor!

 

[Merlin1047]

Picture 2: Exhaust trail and fireball with airplane and building shrapnel.

I saved the picture and expanded it using Corel Photopaint. Not much luck due to poor resolution. But it appears to me that the discolored area near the picture's center is NOT an exhaust trail but a cloud of dust resulting from the aircraft's initial impact in the vicinity of the helipad. Also the debris that is well away from the building indicates that the aircraft was shedding parts prior to impacting the building. That would support the official account of events. Also no modern jet leaves an exhaust trail that is as dirty as this one appears to be. The last commercial passenger jet that had engines which polluted that much was the 707 and they haven't been in service for over 20 years.

Final item - I went to the web site which claims to prove that no 757 hit the Pentagon
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Wonder of wonders - look at the photograph for question #5. Damage to the building coincided EXACTLY with the overlay of a 757. Yes, the damage sustained by the building in the area struck by the plane's wingtips is substantially less than the damage near the center of impact. That's because the structural strength of a wing at its tip is far less than at the wing root. Second, the total mass of the wing is concentrated near the fuselage and not at the outboard ends.

People who point to these photos as proof of their silly conspiracy theories are either ignorant of aircraft construction, or lack any understanding of fundamental physics. Then again they could be so determined to find a conspiracy that their ambition blinds them to the facts. Or they could be liberals who, having given up on presenting kerry as a war hero, see an opportunity to dupe a few lunatics into voting Democratic this November.

 

[Comrade]

I saved the picture and expanded it using Corel Photopaint. Not much luck due to poor resolution. But it appears to me that the discolored area near the picture's center is NOT an exhaust trail but a cloud of dust resulting from the aircraft's initial impact in the vicinity of the helipad. Also the debris that is well away from the building indicates that the aircraft was shedding parts prior to impacting the building. That would support the official account of events. Also no modern jet leaves an exhaust trail that is as dirty as this one appears to be. The last commercial passenger jet that had engines which polluted that much was the 707 and they haven't been in service for over 20 years.

Final item - I went to the web site which claims to prove that no 757 hit the Pentagon
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Wonder of wonders - look at the photograph for question #5. Damage to the building coincided EXACTLY with the overlay of a 757. Yes, the damage sustained by the building in the area struck by the plane's wingtips is substantially less than the damage near the center of impact. That's because the structural strength of a wing at its tip is far less than at the wing root. Second, the total mass of the wing is concentrated near the fuselage and not at the outboard ends.

People who point to these photos as proof of their silly conspiracy theories are either ignorant of aircraft construction, or lack any understanding of fundamental physics. Then again they could be so determined to find a conspiracy that their ambition blinds them to the facts. Or they could be liberals who, having given up on presenting kerry as a war hero, see an opportunity to dupe a few lunatics into voting Democratic this November.

It's also extremely hard to believe someone can actually witness footage of both aircraft hitting the towers, and then conclude the Pentagon attack was instead a bomb conspiracy.

Actually, I've heard it said the aircraft hitting the towers didn't actually cause the damage, but instead they were coodinated with a bomb in the building. How utterly hopeless is that?

 

[lilcountriegal]

It's also extremely hard to believe someone can actually witness footage of both aircraft hitting the towers, and then conclude the Pentagon attack was instead a bomb conspiracy.

Actually, I've heard it said the aircraft hitting the towers didn't actually cause the damage, but instead they were coodinated with a bomb in the building. How utterly hopeless is that?

My favorite one about the towers is either

1) there was something mounted to the underside of the aircraft, miraculously caught on film by CNN, which must have been a bomb

or

2) the plane was caught on film firing a missle in the seconds before impact.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Don't forget the Bush owned security team placing explosives in strategic places to bring down the towers.

 

[Daniel]

Ok guys, the footage of the "Pod" and the flash just before impact can be found on a documentary called "America Remembers" released right from CNN, it is there for all to see...

there is also footage from the naudey (spelling) brothers that were here from france making a documentary about the New York fire fighters and actually got footage of the first plane hitting, and guess what, there is a flash there too, just before impact.

There were four different cameras that cought this very same thing on camera, which rules out a reflection.

There is no arguing that it is not there because it is clearly visible, we should all be asking why it is there, and how terrorists with box cutters did this.

Also, why were there so many firefighters that heard multiple explosions before the building collapsed?

Why did a book entitled "America Attacked" released by a california university say that there was a "100ft crater in the pentagons lawn" when we can clearly see that ther was NO CRATER in the lawn.

And this is the kicker, Larry silverstein owner of building #7 actually admitted on a PBS documentary that they made the decision to "pull" building 7.

My question is how in the world did they plant the explosives within an 8 hour period..... that takes days of planning and work, the only logical answer to that is that the explosives were placed beforehand.

The damage done to the pentagon does not come close to what a 757 should have done. again, how does a 150ft long 125ft wide plane fit in a 16x20 hole, it does not make sense. look at the pictures of the building before it collapsed, there is no debris, the roofline is still intact and there are unbroken windows in the upper floors, please explain how a 757 could plow into a builing and cause such minimal damage.

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Daniel,

Here is a scientific view of the Pentagon crash.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

 

[Merlin1047]

The damage done to the pentagon does not come close to what a 757 should have done. again, how does a 150ft long 125ft wide plane fit in a 16x20 hole, it does not make sense. look at the pictures of the building before it collapsed, there is no debris, the roofline is still intact and there are unbroken windows in the upper floors, please explain how a 757 could plow into a builing and cause such minimal damage.

I quit. You remind me of a drug addict who knows his habit is killing him, but will not try to quit simply because he likes the rush.

You are addicted to your conspiracy theory and no amount of logic, evidence or science is going to dissuade you from your belief. You will cling to this theory even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and you do this simply because this is what you WANT to believe.

Some people are ignorant, some are not too bright. Either of these conditions can be cured with a little education and an open mind. But there is no cure for someone determined to be stupid. So enjoy it.

 

[Daniel]

Ok, i took a look at the "scientific analysis"

On one animation it shows how the wings hit the building to the right of the plane first, but in this picture you can clearly see that there is no damage from the tail of the plane, OR the wings. In fact you can see where the wall has been pushed OUT and not IN like it should have been during the impact. keep in mind that this hole is about 16x20 and there is no visible damage from the 125ft wing span.

Notice the unbroken windows

A picture says a thousand words, and this one tells quite a tale....

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numer...premiers-secours/premiers-secours1_grande.jpg

 

[Mr. P]

Daniel...

I think the jury is in and You're a

MORON!!

 

[Comrade]

Ok, i took a look at the "scientific analysis"

On one animation it shows how the wings hit the building to the right of the plane first, but in this picture you can clearly see that there is no damage from the tail of the plane, OR the wings. In fact you can see where the wall has been pushed OUT and not IN like it should have been during the impact. keep in mind that this hole is about 16x20 and there is no visible damage from the 125ft wing span.

Notice the unbroken windows

A picture says a thousand words, and this one tells quite a tale....

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numer...premiers-secours/premiers-secours1_grande.jpg

It's clear to me from this picture, that the Bush junta must have bombed the Pentagon. I must also assume this particular section housed the department used to plan and executed the attacks on 9-11.

It appears like a standard cleaner operation. On the day of the atacks, they needed to ensure that all data stored in the Pentagon computers in this section, along with any possible government employees privy to it, were destroyed in the normal manner.

Thus leaving no trace that could lead back to the Bush administration who authorized it.

We should take this offline to discuss further, though. It's not safe to discuss this online...