I suggest any of you US citizens who has confidence in your government should take a look at this...

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

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but this seems rather suspect to me. What do you think?

[img]http://home.comcast.net/~mferker/avion-incrustation.jpg[/img]

Please don't be stupid.

The points of damage caused by the wings is circled in YELLOW. The plane, (as anyone who understands any tiny aspect of aviation dynamics) did not crash STRAIGHT into the WH's side. It hit the white house in a descent, and never actually HIT the white house. The damage was caused by the NOSE area, and due to the angle of the impact, the wings were never able to cause any real damage, EXCEPT for the small scathing toward the bottom. The only way the wings would actually be able to do damage is if the plane collided with the White House at a near perfect 180 degree straight line, which most ace pilots wouldn't be able to accomplish.

Try not to believe liberal propaganda, because quite frankly, that's all it is. Fortunately, the people who start such disgusting conspiracy theories don't tend to be very intelligent, and so the faults in their arguments aren't too difficult to point out.

It's french propoganda! You can see the writing in french on the page. They want people to think the govenment killed off a plane full of people to cover something up, just to make the US look bad! :P

And you said "white house" rather than "pentagon" quite a few times.

I'm glad you guys noticed. ;)

To be honest... I would say that I can see how the lower damage can be construed as wing damage... but if you take into account the height of the building and the height of the wings and engines above ground level, I would have expected to see more wreckage... or at least some part of the fuselage.

I did some research and there's ALWAYS a large part of the fuselage remaining after passenger plane impacts and detonations.

Also, although the damage after the wall fell seems quite impressive, the hole in the front of the building doesnt look at all like I would expect considering the size of the plane involved.

From the pictures, I'm pretty sure something hit it... probably something flying.... but I remain unconvinced that it was a large passenger plane.

Eyewitness reports also claimed the vehicle that hit it was "a private jet, maybe holding 8-16 people" and that the engine noise was "a high pitched screeching, like a fighter jet"

Cruise missile perhaps?

Edit: And incidentally, I dont know anything about liberal propaganda... I'm assessing this from the unbiased viewpoint of an outsider. (I'm English)

Try looking at it without your patriot-tinted spectacles. ;)

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=0#msg21048 date=1063416579]
Try looking at it without your patriot-tinted spectacles. ;)
[/quote]

That would be impossible.

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=0#msg21035 date=1063410746]
I suggest any of you US citizens who has confidence in your government should take a look at this...[/quote]

Eww, silly English person dissing our government!
Removed image, if you're EvilCheese: Go HERE! :P

Intresting, i have done a large amount of research into this paticular subject and it has lead me to believe that not ALL the facts are as they seem.
The avarage run of the mill 767 that was apprently used in the sucide collision consisted of 3 key materials these being aluminium titanium and steel. The official report says that the lack of debris was caused by immense heat that didn't just reduce the metal to a liquid state but completly incinerated it leaving no trace behind. I'm not sure of the exact melting point of titanium but it is far greater than aluminium which recyled at 700c. The combustion temperature of the jet fuel is 800C, This could explain some incineration of the main body of the jet but certainly not the wings (which were apprently detached upon collision) and certaintly not the titanium + steel parts of the craft. I have many more facts in a lot greater detail to support this but for now post is getting too big :)

Melting point: 1668 °C (3034 °F)
Boiling point: 3287 °C (5949 °F)

Haha, stupidity is so fun to watch.

[quote]
Haha, stupidity is so fun to watch.
[/quote]
[quote]
stupidity

n 1: a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience
[/quote]

Yes, it's amazing the way that in the face of evidence and past experience, people still continually swallow everything and anything that the corrupt politicians and media spindoctors hand to them without question, just to avoid casting doubt on their national integrity.

You'd think they'd have learned by now wouldnt you?

The government may not be very smart but I sure as hell think they wouldn't kill off a plane full of people for something like that.

Conspiracty theorists are a nuisance. The idea that the government would allow such things to happen is sheer madness. These people blame our perception as the reason we don't accept their ideas.

What you have to remember is that on occasion, some conspiracy theorists actually get the right end of things.

Take the Waco massacre as a perfect example if you want to see how much the US government values human life, or perhaps the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died due to the US embargos and sanctions on the import of medicine and goods.

Any government only values life so far as it convenient, this is an undeniable fact.

If you want to know how much GWB values life.... check out how many people he personally had executed when he was governer of Texas. You might be surprised.

What more people need to do is to LOOK at what's going on around them. The US government (and the English government for that matter) get up to enough shady stuff that they DONT hide. things that are plain and documented for anyone who wants to look.

The problem is that most people dont want to look.. they dont want to face the idea of the CIA investing in drug trade, they dont want to consider the dodgy foreign policies.. they dont want to consider the fact that the very terrorists that are plaguing them were trained and armed by their own agencies.

Why dont they want to consider it?

I dont know... why dont you tell me?

I'm not saying they value life at all, but making a plane full of people disappear without evididence is not an easy thing to do, even for someone as "powerful" as the government.


[quote]Any government only values life so far as it convenient[/quote]
That reminds me of this :)

[quote]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?[/quote]

Didn't the plane hit the ground first, severely reducing its speed and thus the damage to the Pentagon?

EvilCheese I think the President in the movie "The Rock" put it the best when he said [quote]"We are at war with terror. Fighting war means casualties."[/quote] Sometimes innocent people die but you must begin with the end in mind and accept the costs of victory provided it isn't out of control. Executions and such things are considered a neccessary evil. I do support capital punishment. A goverment, especially ours, does value human life but their is a cost vs. reward element that must be considered. It's a tricky subject and isn't easily decided.

Please don't say anything about there being no WMD in iraq, WMD or not, saddam needed to be taken out of power :P

perhaps the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died due to the US embargos and sanctions on the import of medicine and goods.


Oh sure, it was the US's fault. The Iraqi government isn't to blame, eh? Alot of those sanctions were imposed by the UN, not just the US. And if they WERE just US sanctions, why didn't any of the other countries ship aid and supplies? Maybe because it was being seized by the government?

Most of the people here are missing the point.

First, to Shadowrage - It was never a 767 in any story - it was a 757 in the official report. And titanium has an extremely high melting point. Next time you do research, at least check your facts before echoing them.

To Raven - If the wings hit at the spots you circled, where are they? I don't see a deep hole in the walls on either side, so they obviously didn't pass right through, and I don't see any wreckage of the walls.

There are 3 other facts I've seen that this site missed:
- There were vehicles and telephone poles in front that were left intact, and the grass in front was left intact, but according to the original report the plane hit the ground first
- Eyewitnesses gave conflicting reports about what exactly happened.
- The only footage EVER released was only 5 frames from a security camera, none of which actually show the 757. You can find the footage right here:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

Sounds interesting... I can see both versions being possible, and I have no way of determining which is the true one.

It could've been a car that hit the wall, but then, where did the plane go? I'm sure you could find people who were within a few miles radius who should've seen it in the air.

If the plane did hit, the wings might have folded backwards as they hit the structure, think of it as a V collapsing into an I, and then into a . as it hit the walls. I'm sure the pentagon gave it some pretty good stopping force.

Also think about the planes that hit the wtc, did those ever pass through the towers and come out on the other side? How deep were the towers compared to the pentagon levels?

Instead of blindly arguing, try to find explanations and ways of disproving theories.

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=0#msg21072 date=1063423832]
What you have to remember is that on occasion, some conspiracy theorists actually get the right end of things.

Take the Waco massacre as a perfect example if you want to see how much the US government values human life, or perhaps the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died due to the US embargos and sanctions on the import of medicine and goods.

Any government only values life so far as it convenient, this is an undeniable fact.

Why dont they want to consider it?

I dont know... why dont you tell me?

[/quote]

Dude, you're showing off your incredible gullibility. Who exactly do you think the "government" is? It is our friends and neighbors who we voted on and elected to government posts. They demonstrate incompetence we recall them. See California governor for proof.

In the first few days of the war on IRAQ, when we attacked troops in the port city (forgot its name), we found warehouses full of medicine and supplies which Saddam Hussein was stockpiling, and refusing to give his people.

The guy murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Find Iraqi's living in the United States and ask them. They said the guy is worst than Hitler or Stalin, and for years have been wondering why the great U.S.A. would continue to stand around and do nothing. They said the embargoes were only hurting the people, that he would let them suffer. Their conspiracy theories were probably that we were somehow friends with Saddam and he was doing our will against Iran or regarding oil or some thing. So if we're not participants in one conspiracy, we must be in another.

But please -- you've quickly become a source of entertainment, so don't bother letting common sense get in your way. I wouldn't want you to believe that evil could promulgate from any place in the world other than the White House.

Sorry for the small slip up in my writing there it was a typo rather than knowing the wrong facts :)

For nearly every major event in the entire world there is a conspiracy theory to match, however does this mean that none of them are actually correct?

I would like to draw attention to another intresting point, this is concerning the plane that struck the twin towers

From the video captions taken of the event there is obviously an unknown object attached to the fuslage of the craft.

The 767-222 (in this case :P) has no such hard points, under close examination the unknown addition to the craft casts it own shadow can it be explained away by a simple AC bay door breaking open?

it is definitely not an open right side AC bay door on the bottom of the fuselage, because if it had come unlatched the airstream at 450-550 mile per hour would tear that door right off its' hinges, regardless of its' orientation to the line of flight.

http://www.rense.com/general41/ac.htm

View this strange configuration here.

If this object really does exist either the plane was not the same that left the airport fully loaded with passengers, or the terrorists involved managed to climb out mid flight and attach a new device onto the plane with no hard points to mount it upon.

And with regards to the Government and George bush (as he is part of it?) being neighbours and friends etc in the words of radiohead "Hail to the theif"

[quote]
Who exactly do you think the "government" is? It is our friends and neighbors who we voted on and elected to government posts. They demonstrate incompetence we recall them. See California governor for proof.
[/quote]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00147.htm
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/news/2000/chads_and_dimples.htm
http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/20001219/iin19015.html

Considering the fact that your president was not elected through due democratic process, I would say that your statement is quite innacurate.

You may be in a position to remove certain people who are incompetent, but how much control do you think those people actually have on the day-to-day running of affairs in your country?

How do you decide they're incompetent?

The fact remains that public opinion on the whole is GUIDED and not expressed by the media, regardless of any conspiracy theories.

[quote]
In the first few days of the war on IRAQ, when we attacked troops in the port city (forgot its name), we found warehouses full of medicine and supplies which Saddam Hussein was stockpiling, and refusing to give his people.
[/quote]

This is just a single point, and I am willing to concede that the Hussein dictatorship badly needed toppling. He was/is a very evil man.

But do you know what the members of your government who you DONT elect do?

How many democratic regimes has the CIA removed and replaced with more convenient governments?

You might want to look at these, particularly the first and last:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/faruqui05282003.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/regime_changes021203.html

Yes.... it's true. Without your permission, without your election votes or any regard to your ideology, the CIA has commited crimes against the international community.

Not only crimes against the international community, but also crimes against your own people. 2 Children were killed in August 1987 because they witnessed a CIA-instigated drug-drop. (Kevin Ives and Don Henry if you wish to look into this).

The argument for the conduction of the "war on terror" that states the end justifies the means is pure nonsense.

Is it merely happenstance that the only two agencies of terror that you have targetted with direct action have been agencies that your government and their operatives have put in place themselves (yes, the CIA was responsible for bringing Saddam to power, and yes Bin Laden was originally trained as a CIA operative)?

Is it just coincidence that the only "evil" regimes targetted by your current policy are those in posession of large quantities of resources which your country desires?

Where is your response to the North Korean threat? The Palestinian threat? The threat from Southern Ireland? The Libian threat?

Oh wait... they dont have anything that you want, do they?

The bottom line remains that if you blindly defend the actions of your government, or any other, without recourse to facts beyond the common media, then the only gullibility you are demonstrating is your own.

Cheese, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that you're either too ignorant see the REAL point everyone is trying to make, or you're just an idiot. You're so determined on proving YOUR point, that you refuse to see the fault in your argument. Please rethink it before further posting.

[quote]
you're either too ignorant see the REAL point everyone is trying to make
[/quote]

Which point is this?

I have just re-read the thread thinking that perhaps I'd missed an important argument that someone had put forward... but aside from "haha, look at the stupidity" and "oooh, you're so gullible" I've not really seen anything that amounts to a counter argument.

The closest thing being your (Raven's) previous reply which is a photograph marked in a fashion that's equally as spurious as the evidence in the other direction.

[quote]
You're so determined on proving YOUR point, that you refuse to see the fault in your argument
[/quote]

My "argument" is that the world as a whole (including but not limited to the US) is not as rosey as the media would like to make out to you.. and that a lot goes on behind the scenes that isnt generally reported (though is recorded).

I'm not talking about conspiracy theories (beyond a conspiracy to keep everyone happy) I'm merely referring to stuff that people mostly dont want to hear.

My "point" is that before people judge the state of the world, or in fact make ANY judgement about anything at all, they should avail themselves of the "full picture".

To aid my point, I provided several factual links of interest which show the opposite side of the coin to the one traditionally depicted.... this was aside from and indepedant of the thread's original topic, which I merely posted for the sake of curiosity.

I also asked some questions, which I left it to the reader to answer for themselves.

Now.... you seem to be implying that by doing this, I am somehow inherantly at fault. As far as I can tell, this could only be due to one of the following reasons:

1) People are incapable of independant thought. (which I dont believe to be true)

2) Given a base of information, people are incapable of reaching a conclusion for themselves. (again, I dont believe this to be true)

3) The information I presented should not be available to the public (shouldnt really be true).

4) The conclusions which you have reached (or see yourself reaching) from the material provided are not to your liking, and as such you feel the need to attempt to belittle me personally in defense of some higher cause. (quite possible)

If you have arguments for blind trust in the common media, or indeed arguments to discredit the information provided in the links I cited (excluding the Pentagon one, since that was only half-serious), then I would be grateful if you could provide them... and if I stand corrected I will edit them out of my previous post appropriately.

If you are lacking such information, then I suggest you think carefully before bandying the word "ignorance" around.

[quote author=Raven link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=15#msg21276 date=1063584818]
Cheese, I've unfortunately come to the conclusion that you're either too ignorant see the REAL point everyone is trying to make, or you're just an idiot. You're so determined on proving YOUR point, that you refuse to see the fault in your argument. Please rethink it before further posting.
[/quote]

Upon reading this i have read and re read this thread to try and find where exactly the fault occurs in evilcheese's argument.

His intial post didn't have a point in essence just a link to a site that contained certain informations about a specific subject that asked some intresting questions (did he even say those were his views?)

In response to this the final conclusion from Grok seemed to be "The American government IS the people, we can remove any member of it from any position of power if they are incompetent so how can they do things we do not wish them to do"

Cheese's reponse seemed to be a well written factually based argument with many official sources to back it up that crushed the only real defence i have seen so far which is the one stated above.

The rest of the debate seems to consist of claiming him to be "Ignorant" or an "idiot" these i would like to point out are not arguments or valid contributions just comments bought around by not really having anything important to say.

I think many of the posts on this paticular thread seem to be worked around the theory "what i say is true" with no attempt to back it up with any facts or evidence.

I have waited a few days now to see if anyone could find a reply to his post and even considered writing one myself even through i agree with the points made, i am extremly disappointed in the eventual response made here.

This thread seems to have moved off the starting subject to one of will you accept that your government may not be what it seems?. In this case the arguments put forward by evilcheese are relevant.

My last point is this, Please explain to me (because i seem not to be able to comprehend it) what the "real" point is? and further more what the "fault" is in cheese's argument?

Umm, just a question. Why link to news sites (media) for proof of an arguement when you're trying to say the media only tells us what we want to hear...?

Hitman, i think you have failed to see cheese's use of the term "common" media, these stories would not appear in the regular press as it would draw attention to facts people do not wish to see or hear.

Further more does anybody wish to make comment about the post i left before cheese's? Or are we all employing the "if we close our eyes it will go away" method of dealing with it?

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=15#msg21291 date=1063590708]
Further more does anybody wish to make comment about the post i left before cheese's? Or are we all employing the "if we close our eyes it will go away" method of dealing with it?
[/quote]

Comment to your post:

From the page linked "The above is a low-grade version from much higher quality video source". I'm surprised they didn't post the higher quality video source. This looks like the shadow of the right engine cast onto the plane's body. It is much less visible in the video than in the images, which makes it seem to me like someone has been using photoshop filters to "enhance" the image. By doing that, it's quite possible to produce something out of nothing.

My conclusion thus: We need original higher quality video footage to say anything about it. This could just be a shadow run through a lot of "contrast enhancement" until it becomes a huge ball. Keep "enhancing" it until it's the size of the moon and everyone will be amazed at how the government is collaborating with aliens to mount the moon on a plane and crash it into the WTC.

[quote author=Shadowrage link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=15#msg21287 date=1063590173]
The rest of the debate seems to consist of claiming him to be "Ignorant" or an "idiot" these i would like to point out are not arguments or valid contributions just comments bought around by not really having anything important to say.
[/quote]

I thought I made a post trying to suggest methods for confirming or disproving theories. If you really care about this, you should go and look for someone who was along the path the plane supposedly flew along and talk to them. A plane is too large to just disappear if someone has seen it at a reasonable distance from the pentagon.

I also tried to point out that there is insufficient data here to do anything but speculate. None of what EvilCheese's linked page said can, at least in my opinion, be seen as enough to prove their point, it's all just speculating stuff.

[quote]Hitman, [u]i think you have failed to see cheese's use of the term "common" media[/u], these stories would not appear in the regular press as it would draw attention to facts people do not wish to see or hear. [/quote]
[quote]
http://[u]abcnews[/u].go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/regime_changes021203.html
[/quote]
I belive abc news would be considered "common" media, no? :-/

Yes that would be classed as common media.

Thus why in its mention of regime changes does it fails to point out that the CIA placed the ba'ath party in a position of power (Saddam being the leader of this group) in iraq

Aswell as not mentioning the above it fails to point out the reasons why it happend? The Iraqi Government before the ba'ath party could not come to a "reasonable" agreement over oil with the US.

This thread sucks; threads should have their own karama.

[quote author=Camel link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21443 date=1063751399]
This thread sucks; threads should have their own karama.
[/quote]

And I think that when somebody's Karma proportion is as low as yours, he isn't entitled to an opinion and, in fact, should be banned from the forums. If only my opinion counted for something. Wait, it does!

I don't find the Karma system to be very fair. People can be roasted for only voicing an opinion, not even saying something offensive or flaming. Although I do admit to having done some flaming and a couple times said something inapropriate, most of my Karma I'd say comes from having a different opinion on (many) different subjects.

I give people +1 karma for a good or useful response to a question, and -1 karma for a useless response or a flame. I voice a lot of opinions that go contrary to other people, and I have a lot more positive karms.

But this is a better discussion left for another topic. Any further discussion of this in this thread will be deleted.

edit: made it bold

That's an interesting way of doing it. Maybe if we only allowed certain people to give karma, that would work out nicely...

PBS had interviewed a guy and he stated that the wings folded back onto the airplane when it hit the pentagon. That pretty much explains it. I also have a hunch that most of the plane went further into the building preventing people from seeing it.

[quote author=Zorm link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21549 date=1063853780]
PBS had interviewed a guy and he stated that the wings folded back onto the airplane when it hit the pentagon. That pretty much explains it. I also have a hunch that most of the plane went further into the building preventing people from seeing it.
[/quote]

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no? And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21564 date=1063865588]

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no? And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.
[/quote]

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21634 date=1063930373]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21564 date=1063865588]

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no? And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.
[/quote]

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.
[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21634 date=1063930373]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21564 date=1063865588]

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no? And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.
[/quote]

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.
[/quote]

Not true, see my link in one of my previous posts...

And if you look at any of the pictures, there's no damage to the grass, so it couldn't have dragged along.

Id suggest going back and looking at the pictures again. I can clearly see pieces of the plane flying up in the security camera footage. Also when the firefighters are on the lawn you can see pieces in the lawn so look again.

If it wasn't a plane, what was it? Who was responsible? What motive did they have?

I expect answers more interesting than "car bomb," "terrorists," and "terrorism." Extra credit will be given for complete, well thought out, logical responses.

You may begin...now.

[quote author=Camel link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21652 date=1063939492]
If it wasn't a plane, what was it? Who was responsible? What motive did they have?

I expect answers more interesting than "car bomb," "terrorists," and "terrorism." Extra credit will be given for complete, well thought out, logical responses.

You may begin...now.
[/quote]

I'm not going to make any guesses, because I don't know what the reason might be.

And you obviously weren't look at my picture:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

There is no plane in that, and the reckage outside could be parts of anything.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21663 date=1063942381]I'm not going to make any guesses, because I don't know what the reason might be.

And you obviously weren't look at my picture:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

There is no plane in that, and the reckage outside could be parts of anything.[/quote]

How do you know there was no plane? If there was a plane behind the explosion, you wouldn't be able to see it in that picture anyways, so I will simply file that link under propoganda.

[quote author=Camel link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=45#msg21668 date=1063943717]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21663 date=1063942381]I'm not going to make any guesses, because I don't know what the reason might be.

And you obviously weren't look at my picture:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

There is no plane in that, and the reckage outside could be parts of anything.[/quote]

How do you know there was no plane? If there was a plane behind the explosion, you wouldn't be able to see it in that picture anyways, so I will simply file that link under propoganda.
[/quote]

Why didn't they release a full video of that like they did for the other plane crashes?

It's a time lapse camera.

In order for that large of a hole to be torn into a concrete building, there would have to be more than that petty explosion, no? Something with a substantial mass must have hit the building.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=30#msg21663 date=1063942381]
And you obviously weren't look at my picture:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

There is no plane in that, and the reckage outside could be parts of anything.
[/quote]

True, looks like a security camera that takes a picture every 10 seconds. It must've been a high speed impact for it to completely miss the plane which also makes sense with no large plane wreckage parts showing up - the impact crushed them completetely.

Interestingly the plane seems to have hit the surface just in front of the pentagon. A good hit.

you guys are silly.

there was no holocaust.

the air force covers up meetings with extraterrestial visitors, hides their spaceships at area 51.

the government killed jfk.

a plane didn't really hit the pentagon. even if it did, the department of defense flew it themselves, there were no terrorists.

The holocaust will be out soon. The eye witnesses are dying off.

Hehe

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=45#msg21710 date=1063991526]
The holocaust will be out soon. The eye witnesses are dying off.
[/quote]

I don't like to trust those jews anyway.. nothing good could ever come of that.

[quote]
there was no holocaust.
[/quote]

Doubtful, I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[quote]
the air force covers up meetings with extraterrestial visitors, hides their spaceships at area 51.
[/quote]

Although I personally find this very unlikely, it's possible.... who can say?

[quote]
the government killed jfk.
[/quote]

Well... unless you believe the magic-bullet theory, and disregard the laws of physics and ballistics, it wasnt LHO... so it raises the obvious question of who it was that actually did it. Government agents is a bit of a large jump to make, but a lot of the internal departments did have a motive at the time.

[quote]
a plane didn't really hit the pentagon. even if it did, the department of defense flew it themselves, there were no terrorists.
[/quote]

One of many possible explanations for the oddities. But as Adron pointed out earlier, it's impossible to tell from the evidence either way.

In regards to the general direction of the post... grouping things together in order to dismiss them rarely works and tends just to demonstrate that you dont really have an argument. :P

The 15th airborne porcine division bombed pearl harbor

the earth is flat.

americans have stood on the moon

Adolf Hitler was a nice man really

George W Bush has an IQ above that of a common Tangerine.

Gosh.... some people will believe anything ;)

[quote author=EvilCheese link=board=2;threadid=2676;start=45#msg21732 date=1064017745]
Adolf Hitler was a nice man really

George W Bush has an IQ above that of a common Tangerine.
[/quote]

Well, I'm sure Hitler was doing what he thought was best, so maybe it can be argued that his end justifies his means?

And it's unfair to compare Bush to a Tangerine.. they're clearly in very different leagues :)

Republicans give conservatives a bad name, just as 99% of lawyers give all of the rest a bad name. ;D