9/11 conspiracy

[jurgen36]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

I don't think there is a conspiracy, but anything is possible.

I think Bush lucked out with the 9/11 attacks, it gave him a reason to be an ass and invade someone, do his daddy proud. There is so much hate for America that it was inevitable before something like this happened.

No matter whatever happened to the twin towers, The evidence at the Pentagon clearly shows a conspiracy. There is no question whatever about it. You can not push a wide bodied airliner through the small photographed original impact hole. It is simply not at all possible. So in this case a government conspiracy does exist. That can not be talked away. Moreover as it happened at the same time as the twin towers incident clearly points to a government involvement for both incidents. That is clearly demonstrated.
Regards

 

[JediStryker]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

Is there anyone here that doesn't believe there's a conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks? I remember there being a survey done about it... I don't remember the figures but the vast majority believed there was more to the story than the government was telling us.

I don't believe that there was a U.S. government conspiracy, and I think that the "Loose Change" crowd is dead wrong.

 

[Chip Lewis]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

I don't believe that there was a U.S. government conspiracy, and I think that the "Loose Change" crowd is dead wrong.

Yes Jedi, those of us who know you have realized where you stand regarding this particular subject. BTW Good to see ya.

 

[jurgen36]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

I don't believe that there was a U.S. government conspiracy, and I think that the "Loose Change" crowd is dead wrong.

Just explain how you can shove a wide bodied airliner through a small hole like in the Pentagon??? The fuselage alone, not counting wings tail or engine is much bigger as the original impact damage. Sorry I forgot the Ben Ladin crowd is scientifically so advanced that they can shrink an airplane to about a quarter of its size. HA HA HA

Regards

 

[Harte]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

Just explain how you can shove a wide bodied airliner through a small hole like in the Pentagon??? The fuselage alone, not counting wings tail or engine is much bigger as the original impact damage. Sorry I forgot the Ben Ladin crowd is scientifically so advanced that they can shrink an airplane to about a quarter of its size. HA HA HA

Regards

It's not all that complicated, really.

At the speed the airliner was traveling, it's body would act almost like a fluid - squeezing through the hole with great ease, in fact.

The wings didn't go through, they were shredded to bits. The engines and tail as well.

Harte

 

[jurgen36]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

It's not all that complicated, really.

At the speed the airliner was traveling, it's body would act almost like a fluid - squeezing through the hole with great ease, in fact.

The wings didn't go through, they were shredded to bits. The engines and tail as well.

Harte

Sorry I have to disagree.
1: The fuselage is much bigger as the impact hole.
2: The shredded aluminum of the wings should be outside the hole. But no bits of aluminum were seen in any of the photographs before the rest of the facade collapsed.
3: The engines can not be shredded by the impact, they are pretty solid and mainly made out of titanium. From past experiences and crashes I have attended the engines usually pretty well stay in one piece, sure they might be deformed like in one case I attended were the impact was at mach 2. But even then the engine could be recognized and even the serial number of the parts could be recovered.
4: Yes there is a slight possibility that the tail assembly folded back and slipped through the very small hole. But its highly unlikely.

Overall, sorry all the explanations do not work. It simply was not a wide bodied airliner which hit the Pentagon. Also it is now very quit about the one engine they recovered and it could be proven by the manufacturers that this turbine was never used in the airliner in question. So it was a cover up.
Regards

 

[Harte]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

Overall, sorry all the explanations do not work. It simply was not a wide bodied airliner which hit the Pentagon. Also it is now very quit about the one engine they recovered and it could be proven by the manufacturers that this turbine was never used in the airliner in question. So it was a cover up.
Regards

You do realize, don't you, that there were actual witnesses to this crash that didn't work for the Pentagon?

Harte

 

[gonzogirl]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

I think..that there were witnessess to the planes hitting the towers too..
I mean what were they...remote control planes?
like the kind the guys fly at the park?

 

[jurgen36]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

You do realize, don't you, that there were actual witnesses to this crash that didn't work for the Pentagon?

Harte

Yes some people did claim it. But the physical evidence points the other way. Also you probably realize that in a normal court case eye witness reports are treated with caution. If you have ten people looking at any action you usually have at least 6 or 7 different descriptions. Also the "unmodified" and confiscated surveillance movies could probably explain the matter, but whichever has been shown has been edited with photo shop or a more sophisticated program. So sorry to say the so called independent eye witnesses do not count with me as the physical evidence speaks against them. Well we probably will never know, Incidentally the engine found was apparently of a type used in a drone or a cruise missile. It could of course has been used in the Pentagon as a demonstration of a turbine before the 9/11 incident.
Regards

 

[Apogee]

Re: 9/11 conspiracy

But the physical evidence points the other way.

The physical evidence only points that way if you choose to completely ignore and dismiss a heap of (and here's the important factor ) physical evidence.

This is the nature of conspiracy thinking. You only get to say things like the above statement once you've effectivley thrown aside the eye witnesses who saw the plane strike and totally ignored all the aircraft wreckage that was undoubtedly at the scene. This is not the scientific method.

Funnily enough, I kinda agree with Jurgen's comments about eye witnesses being treated with caution. But which eye witnesses are treated with caution depends on which scenario you favour. In my opinion, all the people in Dealy plaza in 1963 who said they heard 4 shots were obviously mistaken. But if your conspiratorially-minded that's the kind of witness you're likely to be sympathetic towards and take at face value.