Old news I know but the US has today released the security camera footage of the attack on the Pentagon.
I fail to see a plane hitting the building and I still doubt if one ever did.
Yeah, that was smelly eh? Is this footage generally available?
It's a conspirator's conspiracy I tell ya,, the Pentagon was clearly hit by a McDonald's Happy Meal, how can that not be evident?!!. :blink:
For more information on this sort of view go to google video and search for loose change's movie :).
QuoteOriginally posted by GhostMjr@May 17 2006, 05:11 AM
For more information on this sort of view go to google video and search for loose change's movie :).
[post=127283]Quoted post[/post]
Loose change:
(http://www.orionhq.com/blog/images/change1_640.jpg)
:whistle:
They did it themselfs. They blew up the part that had to be rebuild anyway.
Also with the twin towers. That building complex had 7 to 9 buildings only the 2 main towers where destroyed by the planes but the rest remained intact. But the US army bombed the other buildings and said it happend with the attack.
Also with the plane that crashed with the help of the passagiers is something funny about.
There are more things that arn't right. They say one thing and you can say it wasn't with all the information they showed us and what other people showed the world.
QuoteOriginally posted by Ice Hawk@May 17 2006, 07:41 AM
They did it themselfs. They blew up the part that had to be rebuild anyway.
[post=127297]Quoted post[/post]
that part of the pentagon was the only part that had been given the upgrade , with the kevlar lined walls and reinforced windows, according to a docu on the discovery channel on the pentagon i seen last year. they had only finished that side and then the "attack" happened and all the workmen had to come back and do the same work again as well as rebuild the front. According to the the docu if the plane had hit any of the other sides then it would have gotten thru to the central core gardened area.
anyway their you go my 5p's worth
QuoteOriginally posted by Ice Hawk@May 17 2006, 08:41 AM
Also with the twin towers. That building complex had 7 to 9 buildings only the 2 main towers where destroyed by the planes but the rest remained intact. But the US army bombed the other buildings and said it happend with the attack.
Please tell me that is misguided sarcasm or I am reading that wrong. Do you not think that two 'kin great buildings dropping in the vacintity of the other buildings may have an affect? Feel free to argue the point here, I'm genuinely interested.
I'm sure you and many have doubts about the events, but do you have any backing for suggesting that?
Have a picture that is zoomable....
http://www.thepatwhiteshow.com/images/groundzero.jpg (http://www.thepatwhiteshow.com/images/groundzero.jpg)
QuoteThere are more things that arn't right. They say one thing and you can say it wasn't with all the information they showed us and what other people showed the world.
[post=127297]Quoted post[/post]
Sure, there are things that don't look right to Joe Schmoe in the street, but I don't think we can make a judgement without any real knowledge. As for the Pentagon, I'll admint that one is a strange one...
Oh and this is in the but....seriously so as I understand it, healthy debate is encouraged.
perhaps the pentagon decided it was a "good opportunity" to fire a missile at their new reinforcements to test it out... There's enough information and dis-information to "prove" and "disprove" a lot of viewpoints with the right argument tacks? Too many "facts" quoted that are mere conjecture, excitable press, skeptical readers. Not likely to be able to tell what "the truth" is anymore as half the people being told won't believe it, no matter what it is!
Some buildings where a bit damaged. Broken windows etc.
But not that you can't live in them or be in them.
I have seen many video's about it. But i don't have to argue about this.
i stay with my point and you can stay with your point of view. It is what you think about it that counts not that from someone else. (in the way that he or she is speaking for you instead of yourself.)
I thought it was interesting on hearing the Firemens conversations about their being bomb explosion damage to the foundations when they first went into the building - not just one account but many by the firemen there.
I thought it was odd that both buildings collapsed like you see in controlled explosions ie they didnt topple sideways etc they collapsed perfectly in them selves - especially odd when the buildings where designed to withstand earthquakes and yet a plane hits them, causes a fire on the top half of the building and the whole building comes down.
Have some fuel...
link (http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html)
I know the internet provides all arguments for all sides, but this kinda made some sense.
QuoteOriginally posted by Ice Hawk@May 17 2006, 09:55 AM
Some buildings where a bit damaged. Broken windows etc.
But not that you can't live in them or be in them.
I have seen many video's about it. But i don't have to argue about this.
i stay with my point and you can stay with your point of view. It is what you think about it that counts not that from someone else. (in the way that he or she is speaking for you instead of yourself.)
[post=127316]Quoted post[/post]
hey hey, it's not a right and wrong thing, but it is good to discuss, I'd like to be convinced one way or another.
Perhaps the real question is....
Would the US govt deliberately kill its own civilians and destroy 2 of its world reknowned buildings and business centers to raise US and world sympthathy and support for a war on another country and to take control of their oil?
And did this action improve support for Bushs upcoming presidential elections?
Discuss..
I really hope a govt wouldn't be that callous but... it wouldn't surprise me.
And a little more debunking the views that were/are held by David Griffin
Quote9/11:
A Date That Will Live in Infamy
review by Richard Morrock
David Ray Griffin’s fanciful tale of Bush administration complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attack is a perfect example of the kind of conspiratorial thinking discussed by George Case in Skeptic Vol. 11 No. 4. There isn’t much to be learned about the fateful events from Griffin’s silly book, but he gives us some useful insight into the origins of paranoia.
Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.
Starting with the dubious “who benefits argument?â€, Griffin concludes that since President George W. Bush profited in terms of political capital from the 9/11 attacks, he had to be behind them. Given that premise, he argues that the U.S. government masterminded the whole catastrophe from beginning to end, with the al-Qaeda hijackers being either innocent bystanders or U.S. secret agents. The planes that hit the World Trade Center â€" Flights 11 and 175 â€" were actually piloted by remote control, with their command center at No. 7 WTC, the 45-story office building across a narrow side street from the North Tower. In addition, the impact of the planes did not cause the buildings to collapse; that was the work of controlled explosions set off inside the Towers. As for the Pentagon, it was a guided missile or, no, maybe a military plane that hit the building, with Flight 77 disappearing inside the smoke and flames. And Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, was actually shot down by the U.S. military because the passengers were on the brink of taking it over. The Bush administration didn’t want the hijackers taken alive, Griffin insists, because they presumably could have proven their innocence. How strange that 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui should have been kept alive after the 9/11 events, not to mention the mastermind of the affair, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, captured in Pakistan and now in U.S. custody.
One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings. He never considers the other explanation: the South Tower collapsed faster because the plane impacted on a lower floor, and more floors were therefore set on fire. Any glance at the photograph of the second impact will show this.
He fails to explain why the government would have waited nearly an hour to explode its bombs in the South Tower, which would have allowed many people to escape; the North Tower didn’t collapse for one and 3/4 hours, and nearly all of the WTC workers who died were in the impacted floors or above. Did Bush’s remote control have a low battery?
Griffin actually does claim that No. 7 WTC, which collapsed at 5:20 pm, was blown up by explosives, and this is taken as proof that Washington was behind it. But what would the motive be? Blowing up an already-evacuated office building after thousands had died in the Twin Towers would seem like a waste of dynamite, not to mention office space. Did Bush think that public opinion had not been sufficiently inflamed by the 3,000 deaths? Do most Americans even know that a third office building, far smaller than the Towers, was also lost on that day? Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane.
Jet fuel is kerosene, argues Griffin. Kerosene could not have caused a fire hot enough to melt steel, which happened at the Twin Towers. Perhaps Griffin has never attended a barbecue, where kerosene is used to ignite charcoal briquettes, and the charcoal fire then cooks the food. Something similar happened at the Twin Towers, where the jet fuel ignited carpets, furniture, books and papers, which then produced enough heat to bring down the burning floors; their impact on the floors below produced the force that led to the Towers’ collapse.
There is the question of what Bush knew on the morning of 9/11 and when he knew it. Some have claimed that Bush was lying when he said he saw the first impact on the Twin Towers, since there had been no live coverage of that attack; the second impact, about 15 minutes later, was covered by cameramen photographing the fire from the first. It would seem likely that when Bush watched the second crash on TV, as he waited to enter the 2nd-grade classroom in Florida where he was planning to read My Pet Goat, he mistakenly thought he was watching the first. Not until about 20 minutes later was he informed that there were two crashes, indicating a terrorist attack rather than an accident, and at that point he started to look worried. About six or seven minutes later, he left the school.
Well, why wasn’t he, or his staff, concerned about his being targeted by the terrorists? Doesn’t that prove, as Griffin indicates, that Bush was aware he was in no danger, and therefore involved in the attack? Not necessarily, given that both attacks were in New York, a thousand miles from Florida, and the attack on the Pentagon hadn’t happened yet. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the hijackers could have singled out the Sarasota elementary school; all of their targets were highly visible landmarks which could be identified from many miles away, whereas urban areas have numerous indistinguishable schools.
Why wasn’t the Air Force ordered to shoot down Flight 77 as it streaked through the sky on its way to hit the Pentagon? The official 9/11 Commission story is that planes were sent north to intercept Flight 11, with the White House and Pentagon unaware that it had already crashed in New York, and that the threat was coming from another plane, heading in from the west. Griffin believes that Vice President Dick Cheney, in charge of the situation in Washington while Bush was flying to Nebraska in Air Force One, deliberately avoided intercepting Flight 77 so that the Pentagon would be struck. One wonders what Donald Rumsfeld, still in his office at the Pentagon, might have had to say about that! Griffin asks why the Pentagon wasn’t evacuated, but never considers the fact that the government had no idea which target in the Washington area had been selected by the terrorists. Nor does he concern himself with the political fallout if an enemy attack on United States soil had been followed by our military leadership fleeing in panic from their still-intact offices.
Then there is the matter of the disappearing wreckage at the Pentagon, of which conspiracy buffs have made much. Photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the impact show no sign of airplane debris. That must mean that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, implicating our diabolical government once again. Official accounts indicate that Flight 77 smashed through several of the concentric rings that make up the Pentagon, so that the wreckage all came to rest well inside the building.
Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania as the passengers attempted to wrest it back from the hijackers, may actually represent the one instance where Griffin does cast some light on the matter. The original official story had it that the passengers made their way into the cockpit, but that the plane crashed during the brief struggle. Later, it was announced that the passengers never made it through the door, and the government speculated that the pilot, Ziad Jarrah, downed the plane as the desperate fight broke out in the passenger compartment. Of course, given the fact that Jarrah planned to sacrifice his life for this mission, it doesn’t seem likely that he would have aborted it while there was still some chance of success. Griffin indicates that open cell phone lines recorded two explosions during the fight, followed by the sound of rushing wind; he reports an eyewitness saying that the plane disintegrated in the air, and mentions that one engine was found a mile and a half from the rest of the debris.
This is proof to Griffin that the Air Force downed Flight 93 with a missile, making the government responsible for the deaths of the heroic passengers who nearly foiled the fourth hijacking. He backs up this improbable claim by mentioning that someone saw a white military plane in the sky near the hijacked flight, overlooking the detail that military planes on such a mission would travel in formations of two or more, and that they are rarely white.
Griffin also mentions that the Flight 93 hijackers declared that they had a bomb when they took over the plane, but that the passengers regarded this as a bluff. He never considers the possibility that the hijackers were not bluffing, and that they set off the bomb (more likely two) when they were rushed by the passengers. This would account for the explosions, the sound of the wind on the cell phones, the crash of the plane, the engine landing more than a mile from the fuselage, and the peculiar path of the flight in the last few minutes before it crashed. In the map in the 9/11 report, Flight 93 makes a U-turn in northern Ohio after being hijacked, and then heads southeast, in a straight line, aiming directly for Washington. While over western Pennsylvania, it veers to the left and then makes a clockwise semi-circle, as if Jarrah has suddenly found it impossible to steer. Was this the result of a missile, a fight in the passenger compartment, or the desperate hijackers setting off their bombs?
The 9/11 attacks made Americans feel helpless, even more so than our defeat in Vietnam. Theories of administration complicity in 9/11, based on total denial of even the most self-evident facts, serve as a defense against these admittedly uncomfortable feelings, and allow us to feel omnipotent once again. Our government is all-powerful and all-knowing; a bunch of Middle Eastern fanatics couldn’t possibly take us by surprise, could they? Better a government that’s totally evil than one which leaves us helpless in the face of foreign terrorists.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@May 17 2006, 09:22 AM
And a little more debunking the views that were/are held by David Griffin
[post=127325]Quoted post[/post]
The programmes I've seen, actually debunk some of the info you've just pinned there benny, not all of it but some. I'm not swayed by over excited journo's but when experts tell you somethings don't add up I'm more inclinded to believe them, especially if they are neutral.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere between the two? I doubt we'll ever know :)
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewey@May 17 2006, 10:30 AM
The programmes I've seen, actually debunk some of the info you've just pinned there benny, not all of it but some. I'm not swayed by over excited journo's but when experts tell you somethings don't add up I'm more inclinded to believe them, especially if they are neutral.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere between the two? I doubt we'll ever know :)
[post=127326]Quoted post[/post]
Absolutely, I don't doubt that there are false claims on both sides. I have seen some of the same shows - ain't Discovery a great channel.
It's the same in all walks, one pro's opinion usually contradicts another.
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@May 17 2006, 09:37 AM
It's the same in all walks, one pro's opinion usually contradicts another.
and that one word in there pretty much sums up the problem with this...
opinion...what we really need to know the answers is fact. Unfortunately we're unlikely to get anything solid :)
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewey@May 17 2006, 09:18 AM
Would the US govt deliberately kill its own civilians and destroy 2 of its world reknowned buildings and business centers to raise US and world sympthathy and support for a war on another country and to take control of their oil?
And did this action improve support for Bushs upcoming presidential elections?
[post=127322]Quoted post[/post]
That's one of the main points of V for Vendetta (bloody good film that) and to be honest it actually wouldnt suprise me if something along those lines happened...
Kinda related, but did anyone see someone had used the Freedom of Information Act to get a UFO dossier from the RAF? :)
also quoting the discov. channel, the reason that the twin towers collaposed in the fashion they did was due to the construction of the buildings and the aging of the fire resistant materials. The building was weakened by the crashing yes, but what stopped ppl getting out of the building was
a) the lack of fire/ impact protection surrounding the lifts shafts and fire escapes thus blocking them
b) the putting of mutiple aerials on the roof in recent years made it impossible for the north tower to have a helipad, and the one on the south tower wasnt used due to smoke coming from the north tower stopping the helo's getting in
c) the building construction was unique in that the strength was on the outside and the components relied on the surrounding supports for strength and when the plane hit, this severly weekend the building and with the heat the structure bowed until it collapsed on the floor below and then it as the streses became to much it accelerated , that is why it collapsed in thay fashion, but as proved in tests conduction by the discov. chan had the aging fire resisitant material been replaced in the early nineties (like it was supposed to) the supports wouldnt have collapsed as quick ultimatly getting more ppl out of the buildings, unfortunalty the ppl above were doomed see points a+b
d) the building was designed to take the impact of a boeing 707 and a 767 is a little heavier but not enough to make a differance see here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html) which points again at the fire retardent failing
e) not fitting an agesis anti air system to the building didnt help
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewey@May 17 2006, 10:05 AM
I thought it was interesting on hearing the Firemens conversations about their being bomb explosion damage to the foundations when they first went into the building - not just one account but many by the firemen there.
[post=127318]Quoted post[/post]
Maybe they never cleaned up after the first attempt.
QuoteOriginally posted by sulky_uk@May 17 2006, 01:50 PM
e) not fitting an agesis anti air system to the building didnt help
:rolleyes:
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewey@May 17 2006, 01:08 PM
Kinda related, but did anyone see someone had used the Freedom of Information Act to get a UFO dossier from the RAF? :)
[post=127388]Quoted post[/post]
Yeah although that was about 4 years ago...
QuoteOriginally posted by Dewey@May 17 2006, 10:18 AM
Perhaps the real question is....
Would the US govt deliberately kill its own civilians and destroy 2 of its world reknowned buildings and business centers to raise US and world sympthathy and support for a war on another country and to take control of their oil?
[post=127322]Quoted post[/post]
imo... YES...
usa wants to dominate... just check the iran thingy going on now..
QuoteOriginally posted by Gorion@May 17 2006, 08:56 PM
imo... YES...
usa wants to dominate... just check the iran thingy going on now..
[post=127498]Quoted post[/post]
You *honestly* believe that a country cannot find a more subtle way than flying 2 commercial airliners full of civilians into two huge towers, full of civilians?
Not to mention the 3rd jet into the floor. I'm surprised they didn't all wrap towels around their heads and scream 'admiral akbar' and drop an H-Bomb on Manhattan and blame Belgium.
If you do, great. I'll leave my tinfoil hat at the door.
They did that - but blaming Belgium doesnt really get any world notice these days...
Were the planes definitely civilian airliners full of passengers? The problem is because the whole story was so carefully controlled by the Government there wasn't a complete disclosure and as such all these theories come up.
Flight lists etc etc are still in Gov possession, so people start wondering why they want to hang on to them....
http://www.911review.com (http://www.911review.com)
http://www.september11news.com (http://www.september11news.com)
QuoteOriginally posted by Benny@May 17 2006, 09:58 PM
You *honestly* believe that a country cannot find a more subtle way than flying 2 commercial airliners full of civilians into two huge towers, full of civilians?
Not to mention the 3rd jet into the floor. I'm surprised they didn't all wrap towels around their heads and scream 'admiral akbar' and drop an H-Bomb on Manhattan and blame Belgium.
If you do, great. I'll leave my tinfoil hat at the door.
[post=127513]Quoted post[/post]
you sure there were civilians aboard? do you have proof? and if you have.. are you sure they were civilians and not criminals on a death row.. and even so.. you think that the gov cant buy/threaten its own people?
this is usa.. they do what they want to do, if they saw a war with iraq a benefit they would do it.. just check the prices of oil escalation in the last 2 years.. and tell me that ime wrong :P
Watch this documentary. Puts Michael Moore to shame
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...&q=loose+change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change)
Very interesting.
QuoteOriginally posted by Dr Sadako@May 21 2006, 08:31 PM
Watch this documentary. Puts Michael Moore to shame
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...&q=loose+change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change)
Very interesting.
[post=128165]Quoted post[/post]
Indeed, it does make interesting viewing. Shame about the presentation, if done properly it would be much more compelling.
I've only got half way through and I'm loathe to admit I'm wavering. Still not converted though ;)
I'll keep going though....
In true dMw style I'll drag this thread back for no other reason than to say
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Maddox still makes me laugh. I know in the current environment I shouldn't but hey.
a link from maddox's page (I dare you to email him...:ninja:)
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
I recall this video, nice to see an examination pointing out flaws:smile: