9/11 - Press for Truth

Lamp · Sep 11, 2006

Complete 9.11 Timeline

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Chronictank · Sep 11, 2006

Cadiva said:
Indeedy, including the fact that one of my oldest friends was working at the Pentagon and survived because he was outside having a smoke when the plane hit.
Knowing Alec as I do, there is no way that he would lie about whether or not he saw a bloody plane hitting the part of the building he should have been in if he hadn't been taking a smoke break.

there is no dispute whether or not a plane hit the pentagon,
the dispute is whether a passenger airliner did, personally i doubt it as there is more evidence against than for it

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

Chronictank said:
there is no dispute whether or not a plane hit the pentagon,
the dispute is whether a passenger airliner did, personally i doubt it as there is more evidence against than for it

lol?

SO in the confusion of the explosion, goverment officials were able to scatter debris (including the tail) around that was the same as the boeing that was hijacked??

Or, in between the time the boeing took off and the time something hit the pentagon, CIA officials were able to hijack the boeing. Kill all the passengers, torch their bodies and dump them at the pentagon?

really!!!

Moaning Myrtle · Sep 11, 2006

Kagato said:
Why do people always have to presume theres some sort of conspiracy over everything that happens, I really doubt the governments are that interesting enough to do half the shit people like to think they get up too.

Same with all the diana bullshit.

People don't always presume, that's a bit of a genralisation. I suppose what occassionally happens is that certain events appear to the lay person to be unlikely or unrealistic, and I guess that's where a lot of these theories come from.

Moaning Myrtle · Sep 11, 2006

Chronictank said:
there is no dispute whether or not a plane hit the pentagon,
the dispute is whether a passenger airliner did, personally i doubt it as there is more evidence against than for it

From the footage I saw, it appeared to be something like a missile of some kind, it certainly wasn't anything the size of a commercial aircraft.

Chronictank · Sep 11, 2006

Marc said:
lol?

SO in the confusion of the explosion, goverment officials were able to scatter debris (including the tail) around that was the same as the boeing that was hijacked??

The area was cordoned off, and noone but government officials were allowed near the site you dont need to change the debris if noone else is able to examine it

Or, in between the time the boeing took off and the time something hit the pentagon, CIA officials were able to hijack the boeing. Kill all the passengers, torch their bodies and dump them at the pentagon?

really!!!

lol this point is just laughable, you are saying a whole plane disintegrated yet the bodies remain in tact? just read over the statement and think about it for more than half a second

Now your turn, in every plane crash in history were a passenger airliner is concerned there has been colateral damage caused by the wings of the plane, yet the pentagon had none.
The hole created by the plane crash was considerably smaller than it should have been compared to similar plane crashes

thats only 2 arguments the rest im sure you can find with a google search

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

Svartmetall · Sep 11, 2006

I'm surprised more people haven't picked up on the declassified documents in the post I made. The US Government planned fake terrorist attacks against their own citizens before. I'm not sure why there hasn't been a lot more said about this in the US, although the US TV 'news-infotainment' service has probably been told not to run the story. Planes definitely did hit buildings, to try and deny that would be insane; but there are too many holes and loose ends.

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

Chronictank said:
The area was cordoned off, and noone but government officials were allowed near the site you dont need to change the debris if noone else is able to examine it

lol this point is just laughable, you are saying a whole plane disintegrated yet the bodies remain in tact? just read over the statement and think about it for more than half a second

Now your turn, in every plane crash in history were a passenger airliner is concerned there has been colateral damage caused by the wings of the plane, yet the pentagon had none.
The hole created by the plane crash was considerably smaller than it should have been compared to similar plane crashes

thats only 2 arguments the rest im sure you can find with a google search

Hey shit for brains. Where did I say the plane disentergrated? How could it disintegrate if there was debris scattered?

As for the hole, it was 75 feet which is consistant with a hole a plane of that size would make.

But again, dont let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory lols

Chronictank · Sep 11, 2006

Marc said:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

that site doesnt actually explain much at all, its just some muppet posting "omgz your wrong" without any evidence to back it up

just for sake of amusment, this is his "justification" of why there wasnt collateral damage from the wings before he ignores the issue

Impact with what, the light pole or the ground? What kind of pole was it? Where was it hit? Was the wing hit near the wingtip or root? Did anyone see the wing being torn off by the light pole? How big was the jet: probably a lot smaller than a 757 if it was private. I assume it was traveling at landing speed, not at 530 mph, correct? You need to know all this in order to make your point.

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

As for wings of the boeing not causing any damage, scroll down this link

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

Chronictank said:
that site doesnt actually explain much at all, its just some muppet posting "omgz your wrong" without any evidence to back it up

just for sake of amusment, this is his "justification" of why there wasnt collateral damage from the wings before he ignores the issue

wow! You managed to read that page in what, 2 minutes. If you read it, it is backed up with countless evidence

Ingafgrinn Macabre · Sep 11, 2006

Marc said:
wow! You managed to read that page in what, 2 minutes. If you read it, it is backed up with countless evidence

what he wrote there isn't evidence, it's a form of logical deduction on basis of flakey facts.

Fact of the matter is that the gov'ment is probably not right. There are just too many holes in their story.
But neither the conspiracy will be true....
The truth will be somewhere in the middle.

old.Tohtori · Sep 11, 2006

Ingafgrinn Macabre said:
There are just too many holes in their story.

Which, ironic as it is, is the 'cause of several debates. Holes that is.

Ingafgrinn Macabre said:
The truth will be somewhere in the middle.

Middle-east perhaps?

Marc · Sep 11, 2006

Ingafgrinn Macabre said:
what he wrote there isn't evidence, it's a form of logical deduction on basis of flakey facts.

Fact of the matter is that the gov'ment is probably not right. There are just too many holes in their story.
But neither the conspiracy will be true....
The truth will be somewhere in the middle.

The writer basically makes a mockery of the loose change documentary, using actual facts, such as, the loose change documentary getting the engine incorrect, or by way of discrediting what the documentary makers say. They use one shot of the outside of the pentagon which shows no debris (because its a close up off the pentagon) and then based on this, claim there was no debris, even though there are countless photos of the outside showing debris. The makers also ignore the countless testimonies of people who saw a boeing crash into the pentagon, to concentrate on the ONE testimony saying it wasnt a boeing.

Sparx · Sep 11, 2006

From the page Marc put up said:
Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

good point that

Roalith · Sep 11, 2006

Can I just reiterate; the clip I posted at the start of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with various conspiracy theories such as the Loose Change documentary.

This clip is a thorough analysis of the events leading up to, during, and after the 11/9 incidents. It relies on documented popular press evidence to pose some very trying questions, and exposes gaping holes in the official story.

As a prime example: In the days immediately after 11/9, repeated quotes on various US News channels from various high-end government officials (GW Bush, Condoleeza Rice, various others) categorically stating there were no prior warnings that something of this nature might happen... which then goes on to show many advance warnings, dating from as early as 1995 right up until August 2001 when George W Bush had on his desk a PDB - Presidential Daily Briefing - highlighting the specific threat of an imminent attack on America, more accurately an airliner used to crash into a building.

If the US Government can lie about that, I'm sure they can lie about other stuff relating to this incident.

chretien · Sep 11, 2006

Chronictank said:
The area was cordoned off, and noone but government officials were allowed near the site you dont need to change the debris if noone else is able to examine it

lol this point is just laughable, you are saying a whole plane disintegrated yet the bodies remain in tact? just read over the statement and think about it for more than half a second

Now your turn, in every plane crash in history were a passenger airliner is concerned there has been colateral damage caused by the wings of the plane, yet the pentagon had none.
The hole created by the plane crash was considerably smaller than it should have been compared to similar plane crashes

thats only 2 arguments the rest im sure you can find with a google search

In nearly all plane crashes before that though, the plane was coming in slowly as the pilot had scrubbed off as much speed as possible before hitting something. In this case, obviously they wanted to hit as hard as they could. Thus it's not really accurate to compare this crash with accidental crashes. The plane did make a very large hole. It went through several walls of an armoured and reinforced building. The Pentagon is absolutely huge and it's possible that the pictures of the hole don't really show you an accurate idea of the scale. I'm not an aviation disaster expert but as far as I could see the hole was plenty big enough to have been caused by a jetliner. Also what similar plane crashes? When have large passenger jets hit reinforced office buildings before? Where is the previous experience of this kind of disaster?
Finally about the 'no wings, no wreckage' claims, there was wreckage, but not much of it was recognisable. Consider these two facts.
Airliner wings are fuel tanks.
At hot enough temperatures, aluminium doesn't just melt, it burns. The jet fuel assisted fire in the Twin Towers was hot enough to melt the steel reinforcements embedded in the concrete structure.

Fatload BoysDoCry · Sep 11, 2006

chretien said:
The jet fuel assisted fire in the Twin Towers was hot enough to melt the steel reinforcements embedded in the concrete structure.

Actually the fire wouldn't have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, only removing the fire resistant coating covering it, the strength of the steel drops with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Because of this the entire inner support of the towers basically sagged and and gave way, and along with the outer supports being severely damaged by the planes themselves it caused the almost vertical collapse.

As for all the conspiricy theories, give me a break, you might as well go read Bin Ladens website if you believe them.

fettoken · Sep 11, 2006

Joor said:
Maybe you should stop playing daoc abit, open your window and smell the air..

Hmm, wasn´t that something Morpheus said to "Mr Andersson" ... i could be wrong tho

old.Tohtori · Sep 11, 2006

fettoken said:
Hmm, wasn´t that something Morpheus said to "Mr Andersson" ... i could be wrong tho

said best with a classic

Sparx · Sep 11, 2006

lol that was so bad i actually chuckled

Dukat · Sep 11, 2006

old.Tohtori said:
said best with a classic

oh my good god LMFAO!!11 :worthy:

marc said:
As for wings of the boeing not causing any damage, scroll down this link

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

btw have to say nice post there marc, that page really does make a few very good points, I had never seen the photo of debris below that is from that page.

Lamp · Sep 11, 2006

The one thing that bugs me about the whole 9¦11 thing is that it probably could have been avoided had the US Administration acted on certain intel that was made available to them some 8.5 years earlier.

MaCaBr3 · Sep 11, 2006

I don't presume any kind of governement involvement or conspiracy theories. What happend on 9/11 was shocking and horrible. But all the documentaries I saw after 9/11 kinda makes u think about wtf really happend that day.

This is probably the most significant evidence that there was controled demolition envolved:

Quote by Mr Silverstein, legal owner of the WTC buildings.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse

Then there a like a million pov of WTC tower 7 collapsing as if it was controled-demolitioned.

Sorry but it kinda makes u kinda thinkg about stuff.

fettoken · Sep 11, 2006

old.Tohtori said:
said best with a classic

That was my point xD

Zede · Sep 11, 2006

Marc said:
on the other hand. There are countless websites from experts proving that a boeing did actually hit the pentagon with pictures of plane debris. But dont let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory

i reckon we get our weed off the same guy in saints - or least i think i did, yours is much stronger !

cumon marc, wake up !

Asha · Sep 11, 2006

Roalith said:
... and that bears absolutely no relevence to the documentary. Good one

I am sorry I was replying to some of the other posters in this thread before I had a chance to watch the thing.

Everyone should watch it. It's almost 1.5 hours, but really watch it. It's not some crazy conspiracy thing. It's real questions that need answers.

Thanks for posting it, seriously.

Someone asked why the media in the USA doesn't break this story. Well... the media is owned by big corporations. And there are powerful people involved.

Andrilyn · Sep 11, 2006

Ofc it's not as bad as being pictured in that "loose change" vid though I wouldn't be surprised if the US government would lie about some crusial facts to it's own people <cough> Watergate, Iran Contra, Cambodja etc <cough>.

chretien · Sep 11, 2006

I think for a lot of people it comes down to this:

Did extremists crash a bunch of planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania? Absolutely they did.

Did the US government tell the full story about what happened before, during and after? Hell no.

Does this mean that there's a conspiracy or that the US government was somehow involved in the attacks? Absolutely not.

9/11 - Press for Truth

Gold Star Holder!!

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

Great Unclean One

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

Can't get enough of FH

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

Cheeky Fucknugget

Can't get enough of FH

Fledgling Freddie

Can't get enough of FH

I am a FH squatter

FH is my second home

Cheeky Fucknugget

Resident Freddy

Gold Star Holder!!

Banned

I am a FH squatter

Part of the furniture

Fledgling Freddie

Can't get enough of FH

Fledgling Freddie

Users who are viewing this thread