Flat_Eric wrote:
>>
... to which Flat_Eric now responds:
Photos of aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon DO exist.
And while constantly banging on about what you believe DIDN'T happen, you haven't really said what you think DID occur at the Pentagon that day.
If flight AA77 didn't hit the building - what (in your clearly expert opinion) exactly did hit it? And what happened to AA77 and all the people on board????
You'll be telling us next that the WTC planes weren't real planes at all and that it was all done with stickytape and mirrors.
Gimme a break.
9/11 documentary
Re: 9/11 documentary
This question is addressed directly to strictlybroadband (maybe "lonegunman" would be a better handle):
Let's assume just for a minute that this cock & bull theory - that 9/11 was indeed just one big U.S. government conspiracy - is in fact true.
Let's also assume that EVEN YOU don't deny that two airliners hit the WTC - given that the event was actually captured by live TV cameras and that there were tens of thousands of eyewitnesses nearby on the ground (not to mention the countless millions of people watching it all live on TV across the globe as it unfolded).
That would mean that the U.S. government conspirators' plan would have been something like this:
"Let's hijack a couple of airliners and fly them into the twin towers of the WTC. Let's also hijack another airliner, fly it to a secret destination, quietly disembark all the passengers and then blow up the Pentagon with something else - PRETENDING that this third airliner has been hijacked and crashed into it. And while we're at it, we may as well hijack a fourth plane and get the Air Force to shoot it down over a remote part of rural Pennsylvania".
Where the fuck would be the logic in that??? If you're going to hijack two planes and fly them into the WTC in front of millions, why then just PRETEND to fly Number 3 into the Pentagon and then confiscate any CCTV tape that might have captured the event? You might as well just go the whole hog and put on a big fireworks display there too, for maximum impact.
And once again I return to my already-posed question: If, as the conspiracy theorists claim, these were either unmanned drone aircraft or aircraft from which the passengers & crews had been secretly been disembarked beforehand "at a hidden location" - WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THESE PASSENGERS AND FLIGHT CREWS??? Presumably they'd then need to be "silenced" to prevent the secret getting out, so why not just fly 'em all into the buildings in the first place?
The Pentagon conspiracy theory in particular doesn't hold water. Even though there was little to no film footage of a plane strike, there were many on the ground who DID see a plane (yet strictlylonegunman conveniently ignores them too).
It amuses me how these avid conspiracy theorists are quick to point out the supposed flaws in the "official" account, yet fail to come up with any truly logical alternative themselves.
Let's assume just for a minute that this cock & bull theory - that 9/11 was indeed just one big U.S. government conspiracy - is in fact true.
Let's also assume that EVEN YOU don't deny that two airliners hit the WTC - given that the event was actually captured by live TV cameras and that there were tens of thousands of eyewitnesses nearby on the ground (not to mention the countless millions of people watching it all live on TV across the globe as it unfolded).
That would mean that the U.S. government conspirators' plan would have been something like this:
"Let's hijack a couple of airliners and fly them into the twin towers of the WTC. Let's also hijack another airliner, fly it to a secret destination, quietly disembark all the passengers and then blow up the Pentagon with something else - PRETENDING that this third airliner has been hijacked and crashed into it. And while we're at it, we may as well hijack a fourth plane and get the Air Force to shoot it down over a remote part of rural Pennsylvania".
Where the fuck would be the logic in that??? If you're going to hijack two planes and fly them into the WTC in front of millions, why then just PRETEND to fly Number 3 into the Pentagon and then confiscate any CCTV tape that might have captured the event? You might as well just go the whole hog and put on a big fireworks display there too, for maximum impact.
And once again I return to my already-posed question: If, as the conspiracy theorists claim, these were either unmanned drone aircraft or aircraft from which the passengers & crews had been secretly been disembarked beforehand "at a hidden location" - WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THESE PASSENGERS AND FLIGHT CREWS??? Presumably they'd then need to be "silenced" to prevent the secret getting out, so why not just fly 'em all into the buildings in the first place?
The Pentagon conspiracy theory in particular doesn't hold water. Even though there was little to no film footage of a plane strike, there were many on the ground who DID see a plane (yet strictlylonegunman conveniently ignores them too).
It amuses me how these avid conspiracy theorists are quick to point out the supposed flaws in the "official" account, yet fail to come up with any truly logical alternative themselves.
-
eroticartist
- Posts: 2941
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 9/11 documentary
Hi Strictly,
Some of the film was really convincing but we must remember that the truth is not always what one sees, as filmmakers know better than most. However in the face of such widely disseminated damning accusations on film that will used by the enemies of the American state I would have thought that president Bush should rebut them publically.
Mike Freeman.
Some of the film was really convincing but we must remember that the truth is not always what one sees, as filmmakers know better than most. However in the face of such widely disseminated damning accusations on film that will used by the enemies of the American state I would have thought that president Bush should rebut them publically.
Mike Freeman.
amazon.com/author/freeman
Re: 9/11 documentary
>>
Exactly. Filmmakers are in an excellent position to put any biased spin they want in order to push their own agendas.
Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" was one very good example of this: Lots of historical inaccuracies (not least about the central character Jim Garrison), yet it in many ways it was a skilful piece of moviemaking that many people actually bought into and took as gospel.
Exactly. Filmmakers are in an excellent position to put any biased spin they want in order to push their own agendas.
Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" was one very good example of this: Lots of historical inaccuracies (not least about the central character Jim Garrison), yet it in many ways it was a skilful piece of moviemaking that many people actually bought into and took as gospel.
Re: 9/11 documentary
I've watched Loose Change now along with Fahrenheit 9/11, and I watched the whole thing happen in 2001 of course and to be honest I'm still not sure what to think.
LC is very convincing but you just end up thinking...."What....SERIOUSLY?!"
2 things that have always stood out are:
- the twin towers DID fall like controlledexplosions...theresno denying that and why did WTC 7 fall? all very strange.
- somethings always been a bit funny about the pentagon and the "plane" etc....
but again the issue of the passengers in terms of all the flights is such a huge issue. Surely America Airlines would be able to confirm what happened to the planes that were supposedly flown into buildings/crashed if they were in fact drones flown in.
Urgh, either way its all such a mind fuck - ultimately theres a huge coverup there by the government.
LC is very convincing but you just end up thinking...."What....SERIOUSLY?!"
2 things that have always stood out are:
- the twin towers DID fall like controlledexplosions...theresno denying that and why did WTC 7 fall? all very strange.
- somethings always been a bit funny about the pentagon and the "plane" etc....
but again the issue of the passengers in terms of all the flights is such a huge issue. Surely America Airlines would be able to confirm what happened to the planes that were supposedly flown into buildings/crashed if they were in fact drones flown in.
Urgh, either way its all such a mind fuck - ultimately theres a huge coverup there by the government.
mmm Alex Kramer
Re: 9/11 documentary
>>>
I've seen at least two documentaries examining this, with materials scientists, civil engineers, structural engineers etc. all explaining why the towers fell like they did as a direct result of the planes flying into them. And it had nothing to do with controlled explosions. But no doubt in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists, these experts were all just government stooges.
>>
There's no doubt that the U.S. government has milked 9/11 for all it's worth in order to push ahead with its foreign policy agenda. And I don't doubt for a minute that there's also been a huge cover-up in terms of "who knew what and when". But a cover-up of government incompetence, not involvement.
I've seen at least two documentaries examining this, with materials scientists, civil engineers, structural engineers etc. all explaining why the towers fell like they did as a direct result of the planes flying into them. And it had nothing to do with controlled explosions. But no doubt in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists, these experts were all just government stooges.
>>
There's no doubt that the U.S. government has milked 9/11 for all it's worth in order to push ahead with its foreign policy agenda. And I don't doubt for a minute that there's also been a huge cover-up in terms of "who knew what and when". But a cover-up of government incompetence, not involvement.
-
perihelion
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 9/11 documentary
The trouble with these conspiracy theories is mainly the websites that promote them. I will use infowars.com as my prime example. There is plenty of food for thought on there regarding 9/11 on that site, however the guy who runs it - alex jones, just comes across as a brash crackpot yank who is not all the ticket - this causes people to just assume he is a nut, and therefore dimiss anything on his site as a pile of bobbins.
Now i wont be as bold enough to say that 9/11 was a massive coverup, but some things really dont fit. The footage released recently of the pentagon hit doesnt show anything! i think its about 5 frames, and from what i saw it was just alot of fire and smoke.
There are photos clearly showing glass windows that are not even broken, situated directly next to the spot where the jumbo hit. It just doesnt make sense - if a huge jet hit the pentagon, surely, given the wingspan of the craft, i would have assumed much more devastation would have been caused. I would also have expected to see tons of crap and mess all over the pentagon lawn.
Why not release the CCTV footage if there is nothing to hide? Christ knows enough footage has been shown of the 7/7 terrorist attacks.
Now i wont be as bold enough to say that 9/11 was a massive coverup, but some things really dont fit. The footage released recently of the pentagon hit doesnt show anything! i think its about 5 frames, and from what i saw it was just alot of fire and smoke.
There are photos clearly showing glass windows that are not even broken, situated directly next to the spot where the jumbo hit. It just doesnt make sense - if a huge jet hit the pentagon, surely, given the wingspan of the craft, i would have assumed much more devastation would have been caused. I would also have expected to see tons of crap and mess all over the pentagon lawn.
Why not release the CCTV footage if there is nothing to hide? Christ knows enough footage has been shown of the 7/7 terrorist attacks.
shame......such a shame.... i think i kind of lost myself again.....
Re: 9/11 documentary
perihelion wrote:
>>
How much devastation do you want?! The whole place looked a mess to me.
And so far none of the conspiracy theories I know of tackles the basic question:
If you're going to crash 2 planes into the WTC in front of tens of thousands of witnesses on the ground and a global TV audience of millions, why only PRETEND to crash one into the Pentagon??
And - for the third time of asking - WHAT ABOUT THE EYEWITNESSES NEAR THE PENTAGON WHO DID SEE AN AIRLINER CRASH???? The conspiracy theorists (including those on this board) have so far ignored that one as well.
>>
How much devastation do you want?! The whole place looked a mess to me.
And so far none of the conspiracy theories I know of tackles the basic question:
If you're going to crash 2 planes into the WTC in front of tens of thousands of witnesses on the ground and a global TV audience of millions, why only PRETEND to crash one into the Pentagon??
And - for the third time of asking - WHAT ABOUT THE EYEWITNESSES NEAR THE PENTAGON WHO DID SEE AN AIRLINER CRASH???? The conspiracy theorists (including those on this board) have so far ignored that one as well.
Re: 9/11 documentary
perihelion wrote:
>>
You (and the other doubters who peddle this argument) are assuming that the plane hit with its wings more or less horizontal and parallel to the ground.
If it came in with its wings at a steep angle, pointing more or less vertically (quite conceivable in such circumstances), the point of impact on the building would've been far more concentrated.
>>
You (and the other doubters who peddle this argument) are assuming that the plane hit with its wings more or less horizontal and parallel to the ground.
If it came in with its wings at a steep angle, pointing more or less vertically (quite conceivable in such circumstances), the point of impact on the building would've been far more concentrated.
-
perihelion
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: 9/11 documentary
Flat_Eric wrote:
> perihelion wrote:
>
> of the craft, i would have assumed much more devastation would
> have been caused.>>>
>
> You (and the other doubters who peddle this argument) are
> assuming that the plane hit with its wings more or less
> horizontal and parallel to the ground.
How do you propose it hit the pentagon then? Whatever way you look at it, something still is not right. Again - what about the glass in windows directly adjacent to the part of the building that was a direct hit!
>
> If it came in with its wings at a steep angle, pointing more or
> less vertically (quite conceivable in such circumstances), the
> point of impact on the building would've been far more
> concentrated.
IF, IF, IF - we wont ever know who is right or wrong until we actually SEE the footage, but we cant, why? because for some strange reason the US Govt has locked it all up! why is that?
> perihelion wrote:
>
> of the craft, i would have assumed much more devastation would
> have been caused.>>>
>
> You (and the other doubters who peddle this argument) are
> assuming that the plane hit with its wings more or less
> horizontal and parallel to the ground.
How do you propose it hit the pentagon then? Whatever way you look at it, something still is not right. Again - what about the glass in windows directly adjacent to the part of the building that was a direct hit!
>
> If it came in with its wings at a steep angle, pointing more or
> less vertically (quite conceivable in such circumstances), the
> point of impact on the building would've been far more
> concentrated.
IF, IF, IF - we wont ever know who is right or wrong until we actually SEE the footage, but we cant, why? because for some strange reason the US Govt has locked it all up! why is that?
shame......such a shame.... i think i kind of lost myself again.....