Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

      1. St Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Wolfenhoffen

Fox News: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Recommended Posts

GrandMaster Smith

You dont understand, it was terrorists who flew planes into the towers, but the government had that information prior to it happening, they just hadn't done anything to prevent it which we were more than capable of doing. Thats what I believe atlteast, I can't speak for every 'truther' out there and their beliefs though. The gov. used the attack as an excuse to get us into war which was exactly what happened with Gulf of Tonkin and the Reichstagg fire.

 

Do you honestly believe that the terrorists attacked us simply because they're jealous of our freedom? f*ck no.. they did it because we were already occupying their country, telling them how to run things. Of course it pissed them off.. we can't go around invading countries telling them how todo things, we have very large problems at hand in our own country but we believe we can just go on and police the world.

 

Without 9/11 ever happening, we would never have been able to pass the Patriot Act, put in these degrading body scanners, have fusion centers everywhere collecting everyones personal information, been able to put up fema 'residential centers,' had Obama obtain the power of indefinitely imprisoning American citizens without warrant if viewed as a threat (and remember who they view as potential threats, Ron paul supporters, anti-large government protesters, peaceful protesters ect..) and also have the power to assassinate American citizens. If you just take a step back and look at the big picture, you can see the power is there to abuse, its just all up to trusting our government with that power.. and we all know how that goes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

I don't know how to combat all that information, but here's three things;

 

1) Terrorists attacked us because we desecrated their beliefs (According to them). Not all of the ones who helped cause the attack were Iranian, in fact, at least half were from Algeria and Egypt.

 

2) 'Residential Centres' are actually witness protection programmes. How do I know? Because it is common knowledge. Why would the government start jailing people now, before their 'plan' is enacted?

 

3) You should take a step back and look at the 'big picture' yourself man. What would America really gain from a police state? They would withdraw from the U.N., lose most of their diplomatic relation with foreign countries, and probably become annexed by an equal rights task force invasion co-opted from the United Nations as a response to the inhumane ways the United States is treating their citizens. You don't think that the government thought about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I don't know how to combat all that information, but here's three things;

 

 

3) You should take a step back and look at the 'big picture' yourself man. What would America really gain from a police state? They would withdraw from the U.N., lose most of their diplomatic relation with foreign countries, and probably become annexed by an equal rights task force invasion co-opted from the United Nations as a response to the inhumane ways the United States is treating their citizens. You don't think that the government thought about that?

Withdrawing from the UN, although would be for the best, is far from what would happen. Were you aware that Obama is not only president of the US, but also head of the UN's Security Council? If anything we'd become more welled into the UN. I've read that its actually unconstitutional for the president to hold two different high positions like that but don't know too much about all that so can't really say much.

 

What would America gain from a police state, although that isn't the main goal? Simple, power over people, just look at London and you'll see how it works.

 

What they're actually running towards is abolishing the middle class, make everyone work for the big corps instead of having an actual opportunity at a decent life.

 

And also why would Hitler have such a drive to kill off so many jews? Why do people have thirst for blood wanting wars and to kill your brothers? It beats me.. fulfilling bible prophecy perhaps? I highly doubt it was all due to being picked on by a Jew in his younger days and the holocaust was just some tantrum gone wild.. I'm not too much of a bible nut but things do somewhat fit into place with whats going on and it really makes you wonder.. but thats a whole different topic lol..

 

Look up the Rothschild, the Rockefellers, they're families that own more than you can imagine. Theres actual video of Henry Kissinger discussing the NWO as if its nothing. Ten years ago if you were to mention it you would be labeled a wacko, now the world leaders are openly talking about it as if it's our only choice and as if it's actually a good thing! This is mind conditioning at its finest..

 

 

 

This guy, along with a select few others are the ones who are on top of the giant pyramid, up above congress and the president who really make decisions.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

Right. Apologies in advance for the long post.

 

Since this thread appears to be GrandMaster Smith vs the world, I reckon some mediation might be in order.

 

GMS - There've been some pretty convincing counter-arguments to what you've postulated so far, such as

 

 

-There is literally and physically NO WAY that the Twin Towers could have been brought down by a controlled explosion in the manner in which it collapsed. Phyically impossible. The dynamics of the collapse suggest a slow degredation of structural integrity compounded with the failure of multiple support columns high in the building, resulting in the primary structural load of the top 20-odd floors of each building being placed on a small number of already weakened supports. THIS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, IN THE MANNER SHOWN BY BOTH INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS AND BY THE FOOTAGE OF THE COLLAPSE, WITH EXPLOSIVES.

 

-There is NO empirical evidence suggesting that, even if a controlled demolition WERE physically possible, it actually happened. No explosive traces, no evidence of demolition crews entering either of the two towers (and no breaks or issues with the internal, 24/7 CCTV footage that was all documented off-site by one of the primary companies in the towers, Marsh Mclennan Companies/Bowring (who I have done freelance strategic consulting for, by the way), who also acted as insurer for a number of the companies operating in the towers.

 

-Even if it WERE possible to sneak demolition teams into towers, rig it with explosives and blow it up, as I've said before, how does the CIA/NSA somehow manage a complete information blackout combined with the largest misinformation program in worldwide history to disguise the assassination of hundreds of foreign nationals? Even Mossad, widely regarded as the most ruthless and well organised intelligence agency in the world, struggles to assassinate on person without foreign agencies finding out. How did the moderately inept and severly muzzled CIA or NSA pull that off?

 

 

1) In order to use enough thermite to burn through the supporting columns, you'd need quite literally tonnes of the stuff. More than enough to light up the whole of downtown New York like one, huge flare. How come this didn't happen? Have you ever SEEN how brightly Thermite burns? Not to mention the magnesium ribbon that is usually used to trigger it burning even brighter...

 

 

Please explain how the United States Government managed to persuade three planes of people, the Twin Towers workers, Pentagon workers, the CIA, FBI, United States Military, NORAD, FAA, British Intelligence and everyone else involved with planning, organizing and carrying out this plan.

 

The people involved would be several hundred thousand easily. Three thousand alone would have sacrificed their lives on the planes and in the towers. Then you have people at the Pentagon and all the administrative people involved. There is no way that so many people could be kept quiet for so long, even for 2 years. If this really was an inside job, please explain how the f*ck it was organized and carried out without alerting the general populace nor the relatives of the victims.

 

Now, the above are opinions on the subject, as your posts have been, but the difference is that there's an element of reason in what these people are saying. Before continuing, I'd like you to address all of the above, preferably without the help of YouTube videos, and without mentioning NWOs or Freemasons or anything else that appears in The Da Vinci Code - I'd like to go nuts and try running with facts, if you please.

 

Also, please expand on the following:

 

1. If nano-thermite was used, and assuming you agree that huge quantities would be required, do you contend that only "traces" would be left behind? Surely enormous amounts of residue would remain? Either that or it was the cleanest chemical reaction known to man.

2. You've said that "anyone on mainstream media who even brings up the thought of [a new 9/11 investigation] is instantly labeled a nutcase even if they provide good evidence." Can you provide an example? I've yet to see any genuinely compelling evidence.

3. Can you provide scientific argument that a Boeing 767, weighing somewhere in the region of 140 tons and travelling at speeds approaching some 500 mph, categorically could not and did not cause the collapse of either tower?

4. If you voluntarily subject innocent people to Henry Kissinger again, I'll hunt you down myself.

 

Please don't think I'm doing anything other than trying to help you out here - you can either have a crack at the above, or ignore me and carry on getting mocked. Either way I'm interested in the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfenhoffen

Wow! I never expected this thread to generate so much debate.

I appreciate all the replies from everyone.

 

 

Now for all of those who don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, I want you to read about "Operation Northwoods", a plan developed by U.S. military officials in 1962 that would involve covert agents committing acts of terrorism in the U.S.A. and then blaming those acts of terrorism on Cuba and using it as justification to invade Cuba and remove Fidel Castro from power. Fortunately, this operation was never put into action but the fact that it was actually proposed by people within the U.S. military and government clearly shows that some U.S. officials have no problem killing innocent Americans to further their own agenda.

 

 

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

 

Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated:

 

    "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

 

Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed.

 

Source:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

 

 

 

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

 

Source:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

 

 

So how does it feel knowing that officials in your own government or military would have no problem killing you or your family in a terrorist attack and then using it as justification to invade some other country that had nothing to do with it? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

 

 

Sleep well, and remember that the government is there to protect you!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tubbs51

I think i speak for everyone here and state that Wikipedia isnt a good source for info considering everyone and their mom can edit it to their want...

 

I'm still waiting on how you think the CIA, NSA, etc etc got this information past the rest of the intelligence community is ridiculous and illogical... think about it for once instead of constantly looking over your shoulder for spooks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I think i speak for everyone here and state that Wikipedia isnt a good source for info considering everyone and their mom can edit it to their want...

 

I'm still waiting on how you think the CIA, NSA, etc etc got this information past the rest of the intelligence community is ridiculous and illogical... think about it for once instead of constantly looking over your shoulder for spooks...

It takes alot to convince you guys..

 

ABC article on Operation Northwood

 

Link to pdf of Operation Northwood bill

 

 

You think they've changed since then? They planted bombs to make sure the buildings came down so there were enough deaths to be able to pass anti-terrorism bills, aka our freedoms getting taken away.

 

Now watch this, its a steel hotel in Beijing that caught fire. Now no, no jet fuel was involved, you can still see how intense the fire is and still building never toppled after four hours.

 

 

This is how it was left- it warped but never collapsed on intself..

user posted image

 

 

 

Now just pay attention to how this controlled demolitioned building free falls..

 

 

 

Look any bit familiar?

 

 

 

 

But wouldn't you need some sort of evidence of explosives going off to support a controlled demolition?

 

 

 

..seriously? especially building 7. Jet fuel burns around 1800 degrees, steel melts at 2500 degrees, if anything the steel girders would be bending and warping and building would have tipped, not imploded on itself. The way it free fell it would have needed all the steel columns to have all failed simultaneously. I'm really surprised cause I thought it would be common sense that there was a controlled demolition involved with this..

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Now for all of those who don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, I want you to read about "Operation Northwoods", a plan developed by U.S. military officials in 1962 that would involve covert agents committing acts of terrorism in the U.S.A. and then blaming those acts of terrorism on Cuba and using it as justification to invade Cuba and remove Fidel Castro from power. Fortunately, this operation was never put into action but the fact that it was actually proposed by people within the U.S. military and government clearly shows that some U.S. officials have no problem killing innocent Americans to further their own agenda.

Ahh, but the balance of power during the cold war is entirely removed from that in the modern world. The two are completely incompatible.

Also, Operation Northwoods was discounted for a number of reasons (if my intelligence studies at university all those years ago serve me rightly)

 

1) It was tactically incredibly difficult to enact, and would have required vast sums of resources and an extremely intense information blackout.

2) There was no guarantee that it would have had the desired result, or that, even with aforementioned information blackout, someone wouldn't have seen through the fog of (phoney)-war and called the government's bluff.

3) Foreign agents, of which there were hundreds operating in high level positions in the US (and still are) would have been party to the plans, and likely reported it to the media in their countries of origin. Not only would that completely destroy the legitimacy of the operation, but it would have dropped US global standing to such a point that they would have become a petty, pointless irrelevance. The mere notion of the most powerful country on the world murdering it's civilians in an attempt to justify a war or invasion is so absurd it's unreal.

 

 

It's also worth mentioning that it wouldn't have been declassified if the US government was considering doing something along similar lines. It's a tenuous link, but one that's pretty easy to establish. Remember, the US intelligence agencies got their fingers burned BADLY by the CIA involvement in assassination programs in Vietnam (Operation Phoenix if I remember rightly) and didn't (and still doesn't) have the power or money to finance such a false-flag operation.

 

 

You think they've changed since then? They planted bombs to make sure the buildings came down so there were enough deaths to be able to pass anti-terrorism bills, aka our freedoms getting taken away.

 

...except there's no proof of any explosives being used anywhere on the world trade centre site. And the whole thermite theory is even more absurd- how do you suggest engineers were capable of splitting the central spar of the H-section beams, which were clad in insulation, plasterboard and all manner of other things, without partially disassmebling the entire enterior of the building. Nope, didn't happen.

 

 

Now watch this, its a steel hotel in Beijing that caught fire. Now no, no jet fuel was involved, you can still see how intense the fire is and still building never toppled after four hours.
.

 

Completely incomparable. That building didn't have the entire weight of the top 15 floors resting on four already damaged structural columns. The structural integrity of the Beijing high-rise block was preserved as nothing had severed it's internal supports. It was the transference of load from a large number of structural columns to a very small number that caused the initial collapse of the WTC buildings, and it was the force distributed by the top collapse (the weight of 15 floors + velocity gained by a 4-story drop) which caused the catastrophic failure of the building's internal structural load-bearing systems. Simple physics and mechanics, any structural engineer worth his weight in wood would verify this.

 

 

Now just pay attention to how this controlled demolitioned building free falls.

Look any bit familiar?

No, not really. The WCT collapse is initiated at the top, then the bottom floors buckle under the weight of the collapse. That's the exact opposite of a controlled demolition, that starts at the bottom and moves to the top. See my previous posts.

 

 

..seriously?

 

Yes, seriously.

 

 

especially building 7. Jet fuel burns around 1800 degrees, steel melts at 2500 degrees, if anything the steel girders would be bending and warping and building would have tipped, not imploded on itself. The way it free fell it would have needed all the steel columns to have all failed simultaneously. I'm really surprised cause I thought it would be common sense that there was a controlled demolition involved with this..

 

As I've said before, WTC7's collapse was partially due to damage to it's structure sustained by vibrational force of the earlier collapse of both main towers, which share a foundation platform and bedrock area with WTC7. It's also the reason that many neighboring buildings also suffered severe structural damage, and had to be demolished. If they had also received the same fire damage as 7, they would likely have collapsed too.

 

In terms of the collapse of 7, it's failure was very similar to that caused by gas explosions. A main explosion under or near the foundations of the building damages the concrete core down to the bedrock or compacted soil below, causing it to crack and collapse.

 

 

 

 

You've still failed to answer any of my legitimate questions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfenhoffen

 

I think i speak for everyone here and state that Wikipedia isnt a good source for info considering everyone and their mom can edit it to thei\

I guess you'll just ignore the other link from ABC news?

 

 

Ahh, but the balance of power during the cold war is entirely removed from that in the modern world. The two are completely incompatible.

Open your eyes.

 

The new enemy today is Islam.

The communist soviet of yesterday has been replaced by Abdullah in a turban!

 

 

Also, Operation Northwoods was discounted for a number of reasons (if my intelligence studies at university all those years ago serve me rightly)

Your reasons still don't deny the fact that officials in U.S. government and military were more than willing to attack innocent civilians to further their own agenda. That was the whole point of why I brought it up. The fact that a plan like that was even developed should be quite shocking to anyone.

 

 

...except there's no proof of any explosives being used anywhere on the world trade centre site.

In the WTC dust, nano particles of thermite were discovered under the microscope. What was it doing there?

Edited by Wolfenhoffen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

I think i speak for everyone here and state that Wikipedia isnt a good source for info considering everyone and their mom can edit it to thei\

I guess you'll just ignore the other link from ABC news?

If I'm truly pedantic, it's not a proper, sensible source unless it's got a bibliography, sources, references and is open for educated discussion. Anything else is the academic equivilent of scribbling on the back of a cocktail napkin. To be honest, though ABC is a damn sight more reliable than youtube in terms of research and sourcing, it's still about as legitimate and reliable as a heroin addict's periods. In fact all partisan media is extremely unreliable by its very nature.

 

 

I think i speak for everyone here and state that Wikipedia isnt a good source for info considering everyone and their mom can edit it to thei\

I guess you'll just ignore the other link from ABC news?

 

 

Ahh, but the balance of power during the cold war is entirely removed from that in the modern world. The two are completely incompatible.

Open your eyes.

 

The new enemy today is Islam.

The communist soviet of yesterday has been replaced by Abdullah in a turban!

 

 

Also, Operation Northwoods was discounted for a number of reasons (if my intelligence studies at university all those years ago serve me rightly)

Your reasons still don't deny the fact that officials in U.S. government and military were more than willing to attack innocent civilians to further their own agenda. That was the whole point of why I brought it up. The fact that a plan like that was even developed should be quite shocking to anyone.

 

 

...except there's no proof of any explosives being used anywhere on the world trade centre site.

In the WTC dust, nano particles of thermite were discovered under the microscope. What was it doing there?

For christ's sake...

 

1) Ignoring youtube links from partisan news network? Yes I will, thanks. Find me a properly written, sourced thesis or book on the subject, I'll read it and get back to you. See the rest of my post regarding dangers of treating any politically affiliated news agency or network as canon

 

2) Islamic extremist doctrine is utterly separate from communist doctrine. The two are incomparable. If you truly believe that the US, or any other developed nation, treats the threat of Islamic extremism the same way it treats Communism, you're completely deluded. Islamic extremists have no desire to convert the US population to Islam- they wish to destroy Western culture and all it stands for, not convert it. Your statement also completely discounts the fact that Islamic terrorists have been targeting the US and its allies for decades before 9/11.

 

I do find it wonderfully ironic that you choose to lecture someone whose working in defense and security for the majority of his working life on the ins and outs of strategic policy. It's laughable.

 

3) The US government spent 20 years researching Remote Viewing. It spend 30 years plotting a whole variety of wacky ways of assassinating Fidel Castro. It developed plans to invade the USSR over the Arctic Circle using a fleet of turbofan powered hovercraft (mind you that was a response to a similar idea floated by the USSR and reported by a KGB double-agent). The US military plans to do a lot of things it has no intent of actually doing. Not to mention the fact that Northwoods only proposed attacking military facilities outright, and only feigning the attack of civilian facilities. They're not even remotely similar in reality.

 

4) Thermite is iron oxide and aluminum. Find me a single collapsed building that DOESN'T contain traces of the above? I think you misunderstand the concept of nanoparticles. They're just small grains of things. Small grains of iron, that had been oxidised by the fire. Small grains of aluminum from cladding, support structures or pipework. Done. You also completely ignored the fact that it would be IMPOSSIBLE as I stated above to demolish a building using Thermite of any variety, without filling every floor void with the stuff.

 

2/10. Must try harder.

Edited by dog_day_sunrise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

Deleted to avoid double post.

 

And now to lighten the mood- the way I see it, most conspiracy theories are, quite literally, like sh*t. It's great for a cheap laugh, but at the end of the day it's still sh*t, if you're serious about it people avoid you, and no-one likes having it rammed down their throat.

Edited by dog_day_sunrise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxxSIDESH0Wxxx

why don't we ever see video of the plane hitting the pentagon? or the debris of the plane? the hole in the wall looks pretty small. just wondering. we've all seen the plane hit the tower, but never the pentagon. not even once. security cameras off that day? a big ass plane would have wreckage right? haven't seen that either. just a hole in a wall. and a fairly small hole, too. i don't know who did what or whether it was an inside job or not, but the pentagon scenario always made me wonder. haven't even seen a stray suitcase (or airplane wing) at the pentagon, but they found a hijackers passport near the WTC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
why don't we ever see video of the plane hitting the pentagon? or the debris of the plane? the hole in the wall looks pretty small. just wondering. we've all seen the plane hit the tower, but never the pentagon. not even once. security cameras off that day? a big ass plane would have wreckage right? haven't seen that either. just a hole in a wall. and a fairly small hole, too. i don't know who did what or whether it was an inside job or not, but the pentagon scenario always made me wonder. haven't even seen a stray suitcase (or airplane wing) at the pentagon, but they found a hijackers passport near the WTC?

Structural integrity of the Pentagon is much higher than that of the WTC buildings, meaning the aircraft and it's contents disintegrated into smaller pieces. The fact that the aircraft didn't penetrate fully all the way through kept the debris channel rather small. The debris field for the WTC attacks was huge as the aircraft entered one side and significant amounts of it exited the other meaning that the evidence wasn't destroyed by the fire. There are dozens of photographs showing items of debris quite clearly from a commercial airliner, including a tail-fin, undercarriage pieces and a partially destroyed engine and its cowling- just the conspiracy theorists purposefully choose the photographs that exclude these to try and support their cases. The CCTV footage of the impact was seized by the investigating authorities- the only reason that people saw the initial impact on the WTC was that someone happened to be recording a video of it- if you film or photograph around the Pentagon without a journalist's pass your likely to be arrested, I imagine. Statistically, you're much more likely to have someone recording the WTC than the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
why don't we ever see video of the plane hitting the pentagon? or the debris of the plane? the hole in the wall looks pretty small. just wondering. we've all seen the plane hit the tower, but never the pentagon. not even once. security cameras off that day? a big ass plane would have wreckage right? haven't seen that either. just a hole in a wall. and a fairly small hole, too. i don't know who did what or whether it was an inside job or not, but the pentagon scenario always made me wonder. haven't even seen a stray suitcase (or airplane wing) at the pentagon, but they found a hijackers passport near the WTC?

 

I know that it isn't very clear but you can make out the front end of the plane the frame before the plane hits. This is the only CCTV camera which films the area around the entry barriers. All other areas of the pentagon are heavily guarded 24/7 so why spend more on CCTV cameras which won't be used in all likelihood?

 

And as for the wreckage, if you do a simple google search you can come up with pictures of plane wreckage at the crash site. As DDS said what we have here is simply a case of selective sight. They only put the pictures up which go some way to justify their cause. A conspiracy isn't so great when it's clearly disproved by the first photo that you see on the website proclaiming it, if you catch my drift.

 

So at the very least your point was moot, and at worst it is complete and utter crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xxxSIDESH0Wxxx

ask and recieve. thanks

smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfenhoffen
why don't we ever see video of the plane hitting the pentagon? or the debris of the plane? the hole in the wall looks pretty small. just wondering. we've all seen the plane hit the tower, but never the pentagon. not even once. security cameras off that day? a big ass plane would have wreckage right? haven't seen that either. just a hole in a wall. and a fairly small hole, too. i don't know who did what or whether it was an inside job or not, but the pentagon scenario always made me wonder. haven't even seen a stray suitcase (or airplane wing) at the pentagon, but they found a hijackers passport near the WTC?

 

I know that it isn't very clear but you can make out the front end of the plane the frame before the plane hits. This is the only CCTV camera which films the area around the entry barriers. All other areas of the pentagon are heavily guarded 24/7 so why spend more on CCTV cameras which won't be used in all likelihood?

 

And as for the wreckage, if you do a simple google search you can come up with pictures of plane wreckage at the crash site. As DDS said what we have here is simply a case of selective sight. They only put the pictures up which go some way to justify their cause. A conspiracy isn't so great when it's clearly disproved by the first photo that you see on the website proclaiming it, if you catch my drift.

 

So at the very least your point was moot, and at worst it is complete and utter crap.

Don't see any plane in that video.

The object looks way to small to be a plane, possibly a missile?

Definitely not an airliner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew

At that point all you can see is the front of a plane, and from that distance with no gears down that looks like the front of a plane. We never get to see the rest of the aircraft only the front for one frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Don't see any plane in that video.

The object looks way to small to be a plane, possibly a missile?

Definitely not an airliner.

Not a missle. No trace of explosives at blast site, far too large even to be an AGM-86.

Definately an airliner- only other explaination for for the aircraft parts scattered around the Pentagon. With people on-site within 30 seconds there is no way that there would have been time to "distribute" parts post-impact.

Also the dozens of eyewitnesses saw a large airliner, not a small cruise missile or fighter aircraft/drone/all the other claims people make which are frankly sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Don't see any plane in that video.

The object looks way to small to be a plane, possibly a missile?

Definitely not an airliner.

The camera being what it is, a device for checking for signs of attempted forced entry to the compound and to see if any cars entering the site look suspicious, it only needs to take a still frame every second or so. At the frame before the impact, the plane's nose is just coming into focus at the edge of the camera view. It does look slightly like a missile, I'll give you that but surely you can't be saying that it isn't an airliner when it is clearly shown in photogaphs taken in the immediate aftermath that there are pieces of wreckage everywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Don't see any plane in that video.

The object looks way to small to be a plane, possibly a missile?

Definitely not an airliner.

The camera being what it is, a device for checking for signs of attempted forced entry to the compound and to see if any cars entering the site look suspicious, it only needs to take a still frame every second or so. At the frame before the impact, the plane's nose is just coming into focus at the edge of the camera view. It does look slightly like a missile, I'll give you that but surely you can't be saying that it isn't an airliner when it is clearly shown in photogaphs taken in the immediate aftermath that there are pieces of wreckage everywhere?

If there is one thing that this thread proves, it's that conspiracy theorists willingly deny the overwhelming evidence in order to support theories of which there is limited or no real evidence.

And then they have the audacity to call those who doubt them closed minded.

 

It's comparable to mental illness- delusions of grandeur, belief that they somehow have or know something others do not, denial of the truth even in the face over overwhelming evidence and the twisting of the truth (or downright lying) to support their notions. Most saddening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfenhoffen
It does look slightly like a missile, I'll give you that but surely you can't be saying that it isn't an airliner when it is clearly shown in photogaphs taken in the immediate aftermath that there are pieces of wreckage everywhere?

What wreckage?

 

I've seen the aftermath photos and there is hardly any wreckage at all.

And what happened to the planes wings? The wings should have sheared off when the plane impacted the wall of the pentagon.

 

The wings just disintegrated into nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
It does look slightly like a missile, I'll give you that but surely you can't be saying that it isn't an airliner when it is clearly shown in photogaphs taken in the immediate aftermath that there are pieces of wreckage everywhere?

What wreckage?

 

I've seen the aftermath photos and there is hardly any wreckage at all.

And what happened to the planes wings? The wings should have sheared off when the plane impacted the wall of the pentagon.

 

The wings just disintegrated into nothing?

95% of the support structure which is contained in the plane is on the bottom 2/5 of the aircraft. Take a look Here and then see if you sill agree with me.

 

My dad cares for the mentally impaired and if you come back into this thread again spouting the same kind of sh*t that you have done all the way through this topic after carefully reading through that whole article then I may have to book you in. Do you just get a kick out of arguing about stuff that you have frankly no idea about or do you actually have some sort of problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfenhoffen

 

It does look slightly like a missile, I'll give you that but surely you can't be saying that it isn't an airliner when it is clearly shown in photogaphs taken in the immediate aftermath that there are pieces of wreckage everywhere?

What wreckage?

 

I've seen the aftermath photos and there is hardly any wreckage at all.

And what happened to the planes wings? The wings should have sheared off when the plane impacted the wall of the pentagon.

 

The wings just disintegrated into nothing?

95% of the support structure which is contained in the plane is on the bottom 2/5 of the aircraft. Take a look Here and then see if you sill agree with me.

 

My dad cares for the mentally impaired and if you come back into this thread again spouting the same kind of sh*t that you have done all the way through this topic after carefully reading through that whole article then I may have to book you in. Do you just get a kick out of arguing about stuff that you have frankly no idea about or do you actually have some sort of problem?

The article doesn't explain how the plane's wings could have completely disintegrated into nothing.

I find it funny that there was only one piece of wreckage laying out in the open grass that had airplane markings on it. Just one lonely piece of wreckage that looked as if someone intentionally planted it there for the photo op.

 

The other crash site in Pennsylvania also suffered the same enigma, a complete lack of any airplane wreckage.

I've looked at dozens of photos of airplane crash sites and there are ALWAYS large pieces of wreckage left behind. Sometimes entire tail sections, cockpits, wings, intact engines, etc.

 

What makes the crash at the Pentagon or the crash in Pennsylvania so different?

Why the lack of wreckage?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Some of the few pieces of wreckage found at the Pentagon may have come from a global hawk drone aircraft, not an airliner?

 

 

!

 

.

Edited by Wolfenhoffen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

 

I find it funny that there was only one piece of wreckage laying out in the open grass that had airplane markings on it. Just one lonely piece of wreckage that looked as if someone intentionally planted it there for the photo op.

 

The other crash site in Pennsylvania also suffered the same enigma, a complete lack of any airplane wreckage.

I've looked at dozens of photos of airplane crash sites and there are ALWAYS large pieces of wreckage left behind. Sometimes entire tail sections, cockpits, wings, intact engines, etc.

 

What makes the crash at the Pentagon or the crash in Pennsylvania so different?

Why the lack of wreckage?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Some of the few pieces of wreckage found at the Pentagon may have come from a global hawk drone aircraft, not an airliner?

 

 

!

 

.

Hmm, you didn't read the entire page did you? There are numerous photographs on that page from the area which show pieces of debris. In fact the picture which you are referring to is showing a sea of debris, but being a bit of a twat you can only see the one blindingly obvious piece of plane wreckage right in the middle of the shot. That is the reason why people are employed specifically to find pieces of planes at crash sites and put them back together, if all pieces of wreckage were noticeable and easy to find then why don't the NTSB just send out a load of girl-guides to look for wreckage. Hell, they may even get to sell some cookies while they're out there.

 

user posted image

 

Note the top right hand corner. That is a plane wreckage piece. Nobody saw the crash but we an only assume that when the people on board took over the cockpit there was a struggle which caused the plane to pitch nose down into the ground. When a plane hits the ground at full speed it disintegrates; the reason why that doesn't happen in most aircraft accidents is simply because hardly any of those occur at full speed. Not many pilots react to an engine failure by pointing the nose down and accelerating for example. If you want another example of a plane crash where the plane hits perpendicular to the ground then take a look at American Airlines Flight 587.

 

And as for the whole "drone" conspiracy thing, the key words are may have and looks like. No doubt you are already accepting this as a fact now though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

Yeah don't even get me started on flight 93... Okay so you're trying to tell me that the fuel from the planes that hit the WTC was enough to take down a steel building and it still continued to burn till like March or May of the next year, making it one of the longest burning fires for a building, but there are no fires out in the fiel in Pennsylvania?

/

This is what a plane crash looks like

user posted image

 

This is another example of what a plane crash looks like..

user posted image

 

 

THIS IS NOT

user posted image

user posted image

 

You're expecting me to believe the whole plane was completely disintegrated or 'fell into the mine' with nearly no traces of a Boeing? Also finding pieces of the plane miles away from the initial wreck? The only evidence was like two pictures released from the FBI and that is it. And then there is no fire or anything which would be a bit suspicious cause it was the enormous raging fires that took down the trade centers in the first place.. and also WTC7.. there are eye witnesses claiming bombs going off in there before planes even hit the WTC! They also found particles in dust that was thermite and molten iron in droplets that would've been caused by an explosion. Like are you going to believe down to earth everyday citizens and scientists or are you going to believe the ones that plan to kill thousands of their own citizens to justify a war?

 

The Gulf of Tonkin incident has recently been declassified and admitted that it was known about and could've been prevented.. So many people died in that war and it so easily could've been avoided but the government set us up for it.. Exactly as to what they're doing now with with 9/11. If you cannot see any truth through this then either you are as thick skulled as humans can get or just in love and trust your government no matter what, either way you're screwed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

 

@Grand Master, that's the hole from the inner ring. On the OTHER side of the building from impact. According to official report, it was punched through by nose gear and some assorted wreckage dragged with it. That part is not inconsistent with the report.

 

 

Oh and

http://www.beaugrande.com/Pentagon%20crash.jpg

Has it not occurred to anyone here that the initial impact of an airliner with a building as heavily reinforced as the Pentagon would cause it to completely disintegrate before the wings were able to hit it as a single solid mass?

Has it occurred to you that I actually study physics, and have taken that into account? Collisions at these speeds do NOT happen as solid masses. Airplane would behave as fluid. Still doesn't fit.

 

Your image is post-collapse.

 

Same section BEFORE it collapsed due to fire and loss of structural integrity.

user posted image

 

See the difference?

 

 

 

If you want to understand what happens to a plane when it collides with a building, watch this video.

 

 

Again, collision with Pentagon would have been different in many ways, but the main aspects are preserved. The damage to core structure is done by wing-to-wing section, and engines traverse the building practically unimpeded.

 

Interesting. Is the explanation for why the plane damaged Ring-C acceptable?

 

Also, is this picture accurate (size wise, etc)? Or is there something awry?

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
This is what a plane crash looks like

THIS IS NOT

 

And then there is no fire or anything which would be a bit suspicious cause it was the enormous raging fires that took down the trade centers in the first place.. and also WTC7.. there are eye witnesses claiming bombs going off in there before planes even hit the WTC! They also found particles in dust that was thermite and molten iron in droplets that would've been caused by an explosion. Like are you going to believe down to earth everyday citizens and scientists or are you going to believe the ones that plan to kill thousands of their own citizens to justify a war?

 

The Gulf of Tonkin incident has recently been declassified and admitted that it was known about and could've been prevented.. So many people died in that war and it so easily could've been avoided but the government set us up for it.. Exactly as to what they're doing now with with 9/11. If you cannot see any truth through this then either you are as thick skulled as humans can get or just in love and trust your government no matter what, either way you're screwed.

You can't generalise with plane crashes. What you have effectively done is post pictures of two black people and said that one of them is white. It's bullsh*t and you know it but for some reason you continue to trot out this bullsh*t.

 

Most of the fuel was burnt up in the explosion when the plane crashed, and since there was nothing which could continue burning, just wet earth, the fires would have burnt themselves out very quickly. That is simple chemistry, and is in no way a conspiracy.

 

Eye-witnesses will say anything in order to get their five minutes in the spotlight, people who weren't even there at the time had their opinions listened to and published. That in no way makes them true. See Tania Head. And do you realise that Copper Thermite is used in a process called cadwelding which is used to create electric joints? When that came up against the extreme heat of the plane crash is it not conceivable that it could have melted and become little tiny compressed droplets. Again, simple chemistry != conspiracy.

 

And out of interest are you including yourself when you say "down to earth everyday citizens" as to be honest I think many people would agree with me if I were to say that your head is way up there in the clouds...

 

And as for the Gulf of Tonkin, there was an attack, however it was undoubtedly overestimated and since the USA wanted any excuse, however small, to try and contain communism and prevent its spread throughout Asia it perhaps over exaggerated the accounts somewhat in order to begin military operations in North Vietnam earlier. But don't compare it to the currnet war in Afghanistan, if anything it has more in common with Iraq, us desiring someone else's administration out and leaping on any excuse to beat the sh*te out of them in a war. How this relates to 9/11 I'll never know but the fact that you are cltching at straws merely shows all sane people just how thin your argument is. As from my experience the people who readily make sweeping statements such as yours tend to be wrong and in the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
user posted image

Yes the picture is accurate. However like most of the conspiracies that people say there is no real exploration of the physics.

 

The wings have no support, neither does the nose, and most of the support is at the bottom of the plane. Therefore the damage which you see is consistent with the tubular middle of the plane smashing through the wall. The angle also makes the plane look artificially larger. A straight on view would undoubtedly see the plane look slightly smaller in comparison.

 

I make no apologies for the double post. ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew

GMS, the first image is an emergency landing with no gears, not a crash.

I strongly suggest you go and look at aircraft crashes again. Watch Aircrash Investigations, you might consider then that every wreckage / crash is different.

 

Every aircraft crash is different, none are the same many different factors come into consideration regarding the crash, what was the speed it hit the building at, how much fuel was on board etc.

 

Judging by the still frame shot and the state of the debris, that plane wasn't going slow. It would seem that it is going well over the legal limit below 10,000ft and probably exceeding the safe limit of the aircraft.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

I just dont get how you don't understand that the government doesn't give a sh*t about you, or me, or anyone else they just care about the money. Remember the saying 'For the people, by the people'.. that supposed to be our government, but yet they will bomb their own people to trick their people into going and fighting a war for them.. You have been shown proof that our government will do this. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again to get us into another war?

 

And also if there were explosives in the WTC, someone would've had to gotten access to the inner support beams right? Well turns out right before the attacks, they had a team come in and do renovation on the support beams and elevators... there is no documentation to what they actually did and turns out that the company that did the renovation was also connected to the same exact agency(or w/e you call it) that did the investigation.. but noo nothing suspicious there right?

 

And besides that, you claim no evidence of explosives.. there are numerous videos from different sources that you can hear the explosives going off.. eye witnesses to bombs going off in the lobby, even firefighters saying bombs went off.. but that doesn't mean anything cause the government didn't put it in their official report that has more holes in it than swiss cheese..

 

If you just look at whats become of 9/11 with all media and propaganda aside.. a rewrite of foreign and domestic laws, the annihilation of our constitution, illegally invading numerous countries, degrading muslims and creating a scare of them, assassination of our own citizens, the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without a cause so on and so forth.. we're starting to sound a hell of a lot like WWII Germany no? Now we have these scanners that show your naked bodies and you get practically groped in public for doing nothing wrong.. everyone is now a suspect in America.. and I'm guessing that everyones forgotten the right that you cannot be searched without reasonable cause.. It's very saddening to see people give in and throw away their rights so easily these days..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.