Why is it that everytime I read one of your posts you come across dumber than the last time?

Hehe..well its simply ignorance. Very detailed 3d animations can be found on the web explaining EXACTLY how the plane hit the pentagon. How it completely disintegrated and where the wings went etc etc. Once again, its no secret. Everybody can read this or see it with his own eyes. Its just ignorance.

I'll bet that half of the kook Americans in this thread can't even name the model of Boeing aircraft that hit the Pentagon without googling it.

God -- that narrowbody with a 12'4" fuselage (outer) should've made such a big hole.

Yawn... This has been SOOOOO debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Over and over its been debunked, but the loony moonbats insist or repeating it. Say it enough and it might be true..... :1orglaugh

The History channel is showing some crazy shit right now about secret U.S. socities, and David Icke is being interviewed.

yet proceeds to make several posts quoting people in this thread.

:1orglaugh

- For the WTC, there are videos ( many of them ... ) of the planes actually hitting the towers.
- In Boston, they have the actual footage of the terrorists (including ATTA )

- In London, they have the photos of the " terrorists " in the subway.

But for the Pentagon, where there was warning of a plane been highjacked and diverted, there is little if not no video or pics...

That is the Pentagon,not a donut shop in Losttown, Arizona.

I have a hard time believing that there is no camera at the Pentagon taping the entrances and surroundings, and no cameras remotely taping the Pentagon.

And with the non-stop lies of this and previous administration, I think it is quite intellectually healthy to ask questions and get answers other than " the sky is falling" or the soundbytes of Baddog ...

:2 cents:

Informed people with a modicum of gray matter know the questions have been asked...and answered in detail...ad nauseam.

The most believable story about 9/11 is that the scrambled fighter jets chasing flight 93 did shoot it down. The "Let's roll!" story is a nice one and did happen. The first reports I heard of that day about flight 93 were all that the plane was shot down. Cheney DID give orders to shoot down the plane.

You people are retarded.

Yes they are.

Very very retarded.

actually, they do.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/MariaPereyra.shtml

a larger cal .38 only moves at 180m/s, or 400mph. guess how fast a plane goes?

The left wing dipped into the ground immediately before impact. Also, on impact the plane disintegrated but you will find that the wings would collapse inwards hence no hole the size of a planes wingspan.

I don't think anyone has called them a Super Bowl team yet. However, their defense is incredible and they can run the ball very well. Those are two things that seem to have a big impact come playoff time. Put those two factors into sub zero temperatures at Soldier Field and I'd be hard pressed to find a team in the NFC that can compete. Do remember that the Bears just stomped on the Panthers and Bucs, two of the top teams in the conference.

It's possible that someone answered this in the thread already and I missed it ... but the one thing that NONE OF THESE theories can explain is WHYYYYYYYY WOULD WE SHOOT A ROCKET AT OURSELVES?

is there ANY MOTIVE WHATSOEVER? ... nobody really even gave a fuck about the pentagon when it came time to act in retaliation, it was only WTC anger fueling it.

I like the fact that this guy bases almost his entire argument on the assumption that the camera did NOT overexpose the footage too.

Call me old fashioned, but I'm going to stick to the theory of terrorists until someone can give me a better explanation - one that addresses motive.

Damn...that's the first time I've seen that - 'preciate the post.

Sickening to think of all those lost lives within the space of 5 simple video frames.

how fast do you THINK bullets fly?

most are at subsonic speeds as far as i know. And although the plane hit @ 350 mph (250 below their cruising speed), that's still 513 feet per second ... about half the velocity of a bullet (9mm), and still highly capable of generating the same phenomenon (ever see a pellet gun shoot at coke can full of water?)

its too bad there wasnt any cockpit video of any of the crashes , that would be something to see.

Im not saying im a Bush supporter, or I think that we know everything about 9/11. But I have to rebute this one, If it was a bomb then the window would've DEFINETLY got shattered, If u watched the video the pressure alone would destroy all windows close to it.

100...........

if u watch this video it also rebutes the explosive idea because as u can clearly see theres tons of orange flame and sutt moments after the collision. What I still find hard to beleive is those flames destroyed the buildings. Looks more like a demolition.

plus, it's worth mentioning that if that "hole" is the top part of the real hole, then it's probably from where the tail impacted the building. I wouldn't expect something as small/unsubstantial as the tail of a plane to shatter what are probably thicker-than-normal windows on the floor above a reinforced structure.

RE the towers being demolished with explosives ... granted i don't have a good explanation of tower 7, but I have witnessed buildings being demolished by explosives, and there are MULTIPLE, SHARP, HUGE EXPLOSIONS that you can hear... as well as numerous "puffs" of debris that fly out at each explosion point. I think if the case was that the buildings were demoed, there would be a LOT of earwhitnesses.

That moron who made the video posted in post 1 simply took the first frame and based everything on that. He simply ignores the frames after that. Its pathetic and retarded.

Assuming he had access to all the frames. Perhaps he only had the one frame at the time to base his assumptions on.

Threads like this almost read like a who's who of the simplest minded GFYers.

Then hes still a retard obviously.

Building 7 has me rather puzzled also. I watched how the top level seemed to start collapsing...which led to the rest of it coming down like a house of cards. But building 7 had no jet fuel to superheat the fires and therefore melt the girders.

Given that it was fema that conducted the study afterwards, its a wonder they're still not 'studying' it. No surprise they couldn't come up with a conclusion themselves.

I don't know what happened but there are are really many unanswered questions and inconsistencies surrounding 9/11.


I will be posting several interesting news stories regarding 911:


Here is the first story:

<snip>

Morgan Reynolds, Bush's chief economist for the Department of Labor from 2001-02, is an outspoken leader in a movement calling for a full-scale, unbiased, independent scientific study into the events of Sept. 11, 2001. He claims the story the government wants Americans to believe is riddled with inconsistencies and untruths, and he recently penned a comprehensive paper detailing those oversights. He thinks the collapse of the World Trade Center, the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Penn., and the attack on the Pentagon were all weaved together as an elaborate inside job, a claim that only forensics can prove.

<snip>

"I knew that all of this was a lie," he says. "And it's all been confirmed. This is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration lied us into Iraq, and now it's not going well and more and more people are unhappy."

The Downing Street Memo, which states that intelligence was being fixed around the policy to invade Iraq, supports this claim. His realization that Bush hadn't been truthful about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq led him to doubt Bush on other issues.

"I said, 'What else would they lie about?' Well the obvious thing is 9/11. This gave them the wherewithal to do their big global domination preeminence project," he says.

The other thing that sparked his interest was the 2004 book New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. He concluded that Griffin made a very compelling case that the government was complicit, if not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The term "New Pearl Harbor" was taken directly from the declaration of principles in the neo-con "Project for the New American Century." The document said, in order to succeed in their project, a significant amount of money needed to be funneled to the military annually, and this would be a slow process, save a "catastrophic and catalyzing event?like a new Pearl Harbor."

This raised more red flags for Reynolds. He began investigating 9/11 and found very illuminating evidence that he says contradicts the government's account of what happened. And while he is still uncertain of exactly what took place, he says he can at the very least prove the government's tale incorrect.

He began writing an article to this effect and published it on June 9, 2005, at lewrockwell.com.

In his article, he writes, "The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principle scientific rival?controlled demolition."

Reynolds says a controlled demolition theory leaves fewer scientific questions into how the towers toppled, explains why there were so many unexplained breaches of standard operating procedure by major organizations, and explains why Bush and company were too quick to visit the site and pass major legislation in its wake.

"They knew they were in no danger, because it was an inside job," he says. "They broke every SOP, just like if you believe the 9/11 Commission report history, then everybody from the FAA to NORAD broke standard operating rules."

<snip>

The fire

According to the accepted story of 9/11, the towers collapsed because the jet fuel fire burned so hot that it melted the steel.

"But the number one fact is, never in the history of steel skyscrapers has one collapsed because of the intensity of the fire. Never?we've had over a century of experience?but for three in one day, 9/11. So that's awfully suspicious," says Reynolds.

According to a special feature in the journal JOM, titled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation," by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, the World Trade Center fire was a diffuse flame. Of the three types of fires?jet burner, pre-mixed, and diffuse?the latter, in which fuel and oxidants mix in an uncontrolled manner such as in fireplaces and at the World Trade Center, generates the lowest heat intensities.

The report also states that if jet fuel were mixed with pure oxygen, its top temperature would reach 3,000 degrees Celsius. However, when mixed with air, as it was at the World Trade Center, the temperature drops to at most one-third the maximum temperature because air includes water molecules. This temperature?1,000 degrees Celsius at most?would not be sufficient to melt steel.

<snip>

The collapse and cover-up

Reynolds cites many problems with the government's theory of the collapse and the subsequent reports that back up the theory. He feels the reports that support the government theory have been created so that the intelligence fits the findings. According to that theory, the steel melted near the floors where the jet fuel ignited, causing those floors to crash into the ones beneath them, bringing the buildings down.

"They don't have the breadth of the controlled demolition theory, which can account for all of the properties that went on," he says. "The pancake theory is preposterous. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. It's just stupid."

He writes that when viewing the collapse in real time, the towers both fall at 9.8 meters per second squared?or a free-fall state. The only way he sees this being possible is if the resistance was blown away from beneath it. In the pancake theory, he claims the building would have taken longer to fall and would have stalled briefly at each floor.

The other important piece of evidence was the white dust that coated the city following the collapse. Reynolds says only an explosive force could turn reinforced concrete into dust. Subsequently, he says, the dust and debris should have been subjected to extensive forensic testing in an attempt to locate explosives residue.

"They got the evidence away as quickly as they could," he says of government authorities.

In his article, Reynolds writes that the debris was loaded into dump trucks that were outfitted with GPS units used to monitor that the scrap was delivered from point A to point B in the proper amount of time. One driver was fired for taking an unscheduled hour-and-a-half lunch break, he says. FEMA didn't want this debris to fall into the wrong hands, he claims.

"The wrong hands meaning scientists or engineers who could test it," he says.

Former editor in chief of Fire Engineering Magazine, Bill Manning, was one of the first to take issue with the scoop-and-dump. Although he says he's not a conspiracy theorist, he says there was a lot that could have been learned from the debris from an engineering standpoint. He says just like NASA and the National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB) learns valuable lessons from studying wreckage, engineers could have learned how to build better fire-resistant buildings from studying the debris.

However, now that the debris has been shipped off and sold as scrap, this investigation cannot take place.

<snip>

Building 7 and security access

"Building 7 is arguably the most potent smoking gun refuting the government account and implicating the government as creating these terrorist attacks," Reynolds says.

It is the only steel-framed building in history to fall strictly because of fire damage, as it was not damaged by an alleged aircraft impact, he says. If one compares video of the fall of Building 7 with that of any other controlled demolition, the similarities are eerie, he says.

Reynolds claims Building 7 was a traditional building implosion, blowing out the base and letting the structure collapse into itself. He says the reason they had to implode Building 7 was to dispose of evidence that would have pointed to the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

<snip>

"Overall, I think it's the head-in-the-sand approach to danger," he says. "This is too horrible a proposition to entertain, because if you go there, the consequences are going to be so tremendous, so let's avoid these consequences and kind of live normally. That's the idea. But it's not working. You can't live normally by believing the fairytale."

Reynolds refers back to the book Synthetic Terror, saying the government has orchestrated this farce as a way to gain the public's support and a way to keep pumping money into the military. He likens terrorism to the perceived communist threat during the Cold War.

"When you lose the Soviet Union as our big bogeyman enemy, then you have to cook up something else," he says. "And we have the Muslim world now. One in six in the world, isn't that great?"


link to the full story:

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive...overstory.html

Nigga please. Dont feed the idiots more nonsense. Including yourself.

articles mentioned in my post above:

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html



Read all three articles and you really start to think that there is something wrong in the official story.

How about you read what I posted and then think about it and then reply instead of a kneejerk reaction. :)

gimme a break. if the demolition theory is true, then explosives would need to be placed (as the video suggests) at approxomately every 50 feet of every single beam in each building. That's TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CHARGES. Wouldn't you think that:

a.) SOMEONE would have noticed crews loading the charges in the building for months in advance?

b.) think of HOW MANY WIRES that would require?!? Where would they hide them? Wouldn't an electrician or two have followed them to the source at some point? Wouldn't someone want to know what 10's of thousands of loose wire ends were doing in a basement somewhere?

THIS theory is the one that doesn't pass the "laugh test"

I hate it when people make me agree with Franck . . . but I suggest you stay away from electrical appliances while wearlng that tin foil cap.

Like I said I don't know what happened.
I don't have definite answers to 9/11.
I just have a lot of questions.

Do you know definitely what happened?
You don't find any inconsistencies in the official story?


Here is another interesting article:

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate ?power-down? on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. ? a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton ? this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York?s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC?s computer bandwidth.

Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC?s first occupants after it was erected, and that a ?power-down? had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) ? approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC?s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.

Forbes did stress, though, that there was power to the WTC?s lower floors, and that there were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out. In an e-mail to journalist John Kaminski, author of The Day America Died (Sisyphus Press) and America?s Autopsy Report (Dandelion Books), Forbes wrote: ?Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ?engineers? coming in and out of the tower.?


link:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/108539.php

anything is possible.

I don't wear a tinfoil cap :)

Btw, have you noticed that recently released previously classified NSA documents show that US was also lied into the Vietnam war like it was recently lied into Iraq?


Interesting article:

Vietnam War Intelligence 'Deliberately Skewed,' Secret Study Says

The material, posted on the Internet overnight Wednesday, included one of the largest collections of secret intercepted communications ever made available. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian argued that the agency's intelligence officers "deliberately skewed" the evidence passed on to policy makers and the public to falsely suggest that North Vietnamese ships had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964.

Based on the assertion that such an attack had occurred, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam and Congress passed a broad resolution authorizing military action.

The historian, Robert J. Hanyok, wrote the article in an internal publication and it was classified top secret despite the fact that it dealt with events in 1964. Word of Mr. Hanyok's findings leaked to historians outside the agency, who requested the article under the Freedom of Information Act in 2003.

Some intelligence officials said they believed the article's release was delayed because the agency was wary of comparisons between the roles of flawed intelligence in the Vietnam War and in the war in Iraq. Mr. Hanyok declined to comment on Wednesday. But Don Weber, an agency spokesman, denied that any political consideration was involved.


link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/po.../02tonkin.html

That never happened. I was exactly one day old (born on the 3rd)...and I certainly would've remembered something like that happening.


:winkwink: :1orglaugh :winkwink:

bump for your opinions! ;)

I cant believe this shit is coming up again - for those of you not around during Vietnam - yeah the President lied purposely and its been proven many times - to get us to get more involved - the Gulf of Tonkin incident has been well documented as a US setup and lie - nothing new
Why do you think most of us that have been around since the Vietnam days dont believe a word of the 911 shit - no tinhat needed - the only people vocal supporting that this must have been terrorists are the younger crowd that hasnt experienced the lies that the US can generate - fucking sheep - get over it

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261