Pentagon 9/11

Mobius

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,730
Yeah thats freaky.
Its really weird but I get more scared watching conspiracy stuff than horror/thriller movies. I remember watching a JFK/LHO conspiracy programme then having to turn the light on after. :p So strange, yet I can watch scary movies and not even flinch.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
i seen this a while ago. makes more sense than any of the shit the news tryed to tell us. i also posted about this ages ago and everyone went off on one then :p wonder what will happen this time.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,178
Personally I think the conspiracy theory is all a bit doubtful, there seems too many holes in their version of events. Oh well, something to brighten up an otherwise boring Sunday!
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
It makes no sense. They have no actual theory. They just suggest that various things looked like they'd been done by something other than a 757 but it's not self-consistent, it's not always suggesting the same thing. It's just selective distraction and cherry-picking of the evidence.

Get a clue.










Oh no ! The lizard men !!!!!!!!!1
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
I saw this a couple of weeks ago too .

There's an hour long documentary call "911 - In Plane Site" which goes into all the details of the Pentagon attack, and, of several wierd incidents in New York that day (appart from having no airforce to protect them etc).

After both towers were hit - but before they collapsed (/demolished) - there are pictures (shown only once) of another huge plume of smoke (10 stories high) off to the North of the trade centre, possibly indicating another explosion? This completely negates the idea that it was "just" planes flying into buildings that caused all the carnage.

Anyone seen the spin-off from the X-files, a program called "The Lone Gunmen"? In March 2001 it's first ever episode was aired, and it was called "The Pilot". In this episode a "group" of government men orchestrate a bogus terrorist attack to further their careers/profits. What they do is highjack a plane using romote control technology - technology which we already have - and try to fly the plane into The World Trade Centre Towers!!! Their plan was that numerous "crackpot" countries would be climbing over themselves to take the credit for such an attack at the heart of America, so they could then start a war or two. The difference between this piece of fiction and reality is that no one has claimed responsibilty for 911. No one.



:(
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
Wij said:
It makes no sense. They have no actual theory. They just suggest that various things looked like they'd been done by something other than a 757 but it's not self-consistent, it's not always suggesting the same thing. It's just selective distraction and cherry-picking of the evidence.

Get a clue.


Oh no ! The lizard men !!!!!!!!!1



Ah, Wij, wij, wij, wij, wij....you've missed the completely obvious. A "theory" is just that. A "theory" has no evidence to back it up.

Therefore, the idea that a 757 flew into the Pentagon is just that, it's a "theory". There's no evidence at all to suggest that a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. It's a theory.

There's actually loads of evidence to suggest it was a much smaller projectile (the video footage & damage to the facade). And if you take notice of the damage caused right through 3 of the Pentagons rings (fnarr), it looks like it was a missle (bunker buster).

Unless, of course, the pilot managed to fly a passenger jet through a small hole in such a way as to completey destroy the aircraft - leaving nothing behind? But you can clearly see an open book on a small stool just inside the Pentagon building, which doesn't suggest an inferno hot enough to vaporise fuselage (experts have stated that there should have been enough fuel on the plane to burn for a couple of days at least). And what about the engines? Have they just vanished too?

I'm all for getting evidence to substantiate theories, so I'll consider the Pentagon attack by a 757 to be a theory, until I see some evidence (like the half-dozen or so security tapes they have from multiple angles - that would be nice).


:eek7:
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Don't be stupid Paradroid! People in power would never lie to the public, that would be wrong!
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
what the governments of the world didn't tell the truth?

SOMEONE CALL A GM!
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
I bet the 9/11 never happened....have to investigate and proove it to be an american porgapanda conpirsacy.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Paradroid said:
Ah, Wij, wij, wij, wij, wij....you've missed the completely obvious. A "theory" is just that. A "theory" has no evidence to back it up.

Therefore, the idea that a 757 flew into the Pentagon is just that, it's a "theory". There's no evidence at all to suggest that a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. It's a theory.

There's actually loads of evidence to suggest it was a much smaller projectile (the video footage & damage to the facade). And if you take notice of the damage caused right through 3 of the Pentagons rings (fnarr), it looks like it was a missle (bunker buster).

Unless, of course, the pilot managed to fly a passenger jet through a small hole in such a way as to completey destroy the aircraft - leaving nothing behind? But you can clearly see an open book on a small stool just inside the Pentagon building, which doesn't suggest an inferno hot enough to vaporise fuselage (experts have stated that there should have been enough fuel on the plane to burn for a couple of days at least). And what about the engines? Have they just vanished too?

I'm all for getting evidence to substantiate theories, so I'll consider the Pentagon attack by a 757 to be a theory, until I see some evidence (like the half-dozen or so security tapes they have from multiple angles - that would be nice).


:eek7:

No no. Get a clue. Have you actually read about the incident properly or just read the conspiracy sites ? Surprise surprise, most of their 'facts' are lies. Edited photos, irrelevant photos, photos of something that are labelled as something else.

http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html

I could give you loads more links but I can't be arsed. Get real.

Annoyed-Wij.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
Wij said:
Edited photos, irrelevant photos, photos of something that are labelled as something else.

well, these guys must have some crazy photoshop skllz. i dlike to see some of the better people here take a photo of a 757 crashed into a building and take out every trace of it. even keep the grass in perfect condition where the plane SHOULD of skidded along the ground..

even the most skilled fighter jet pilots probably couldnt fly a 757 10 foot off the ground without stalling it and hitting the ground first.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm < one of the better sites to let you make your own mind up.
 

Dillinja

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
3,056
I saw a couple of chemtrails floating ominously in the sky again last night aswell.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Ah, pants to you, gotta go to bed. Will resume common sense tomorrow.
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
Wij said:
Ah, pants to you, gotta go to bed. Will resume common sense tomorrow.


heh

That link you posted is by Joe Vialls. He's basically a conspiracy nut himself, but who has decided to fly against the "normal thinking" of the conspiracy nut on this occasion (!?!? - whatever that is). The plane hit the roof (he says)? This the same roof I saw collapsing live on tv? Or another roof perhaps? Then, how come the whole front of the building is fooked, and, a hole was punched through 3 seperate reinforced rings - horizontally.

Some of his stuff is quite interesting:


Joe Vialls said:
Crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie, click here


When Pan Am 103 exploded at Lockerbie, the media hyped up "Moslem Terrorists". First the Syrians, then the Iranians, and finally the Libyans. The most obvious suspect should have been the State of Israel, because it alone stood to gain from blackening the reputations of Arab nations. Despite an earlier known attempt to bomb one of its very own El Al airliners in 1986 for media effect, the probability that the Mossad was also responsible for bombing Pan Am Flight 103, was ruthlessly suppressed.



:D
 

dysfunction

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,709
Nice one Gef. I was going to post that!


On Sky One tonight there is a Conspiracies programme on if anyone is interested....
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
As regards the lack of skidmarks who claimed the 757 skidded into the pentagon ? It hit the helipad at one point but noone claims it then ran along the ground until it hit the pentagon.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
if the heat from the fule was hot enough to melt down a 757, why then, is it not hot enough to melt the rubble from the walls?! or even the support beams etc. why is the grass not scorched? even tens of feet away, surely the grass would be scorched from a 2500degree fire ball?? did the government reinforce the grass with special bomb proof spray incase of an attack, it would be left in pristine conditions?

how where the pilots so skilled? to fly a 757 at least 250mph, so low to the ground, without stalling it...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Yes - concrete melts as easily as metal.

:wolleyes:
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
you know better than me. but i think even i realise that grass doesnt stand tall with a 2500degree inferno happening. you can clearly see in the photos that there is metal beams and stuff still there.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,178
The Pentagon is not a civilian building. That section had been 5 days away from completion of a major refit. The walls contained special material to suppress flying debris. The windows were designed not to shatter.

As regards the grass, look at any image of a crashed airliner, and see if you can spot scorched grass anywhere but the immediate vicinity. Most of the fuel burned while inside the building, which is why within 30 minutes it collapsed.

I can't imagine its that hard to fly an aeroplane into a building at high speed.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
so your sayin then, that a badly trained pilot, trained to fly single engine planes, could firstly hijcak a 757. fly it at a very low altitude. sustain a speed of at least 250mph. keep it level. NOT STALL IT.?!

it was even said the most skilled pilots in the world couldnt do that. even the 70 degree turn when the one of the planes diverted to the WTC.

love to see a newbie pilot go from this to this
 

UrganNagru

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
186
Aye the pilot obviously wasn't that good at low level flying, I doubt he'd miss the ground if he managed to fly into a ruddy great building. Hope he lost his liscance.



(Sorry had to be done)
(sorry I cant spell)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
He didn't miss the ground, he hit the helipad, then lifted up a bit and smacked into the 2nd floor.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom