[9/11] Let's have a discussion. by Scuzzle - Page 12 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [9/11] Let's have a discussion.
Page 12 of 13
Thread Tools
Dat
VeteranX
Old
221 - 07-07-2008, 23:50
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeofDeath View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8mGvFzvwFM&eurl
There was very little wreckage at the Pentagon, similiar to Flight 93.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFjf6fwnj4
Line of Civilians Removing Evidence from Pentagon
That's great and everything, but it does absolutely nothing to address my argument. What I want to know is why, given the enormous problems I highlighted in my first post, the government would hit the Pentagon with a missile, when it would be much easier to simply crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon to begin with.
 
Dat is offline
 
Sponsored Links
iten
Veteran++
Old
222 - 07-07-2008, 23:55
Reply With Quote
theoretically couldn't a plane be remote-controlled into a building?

i guess the issue would be the size of the plane
 
iten is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
223 - 07-07-2008, 23:58
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartiusstinkius View Post
These threads are great at seeing how different people reason and the public's different levels of understanding of logic, physical theories, and the interplay between those two concepts.

It's quite interesting.
Here is a great post showing what I'm talking about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
The more I read from 9/11 truthers, the more I start to realize that their entire argument boils down to looking at photographs or videos of the attacks and saying "Well that's not what I'd expect to happen!"

Take the nuts who think that a missile hit the pentagon, for instance. You'd have to believe that the government hijacked a plane with ~58 people on board, disappeared the entire plane along with all of its passengers, flew another aircraft capable of firing a missile to the Pentagon (which is close to a crowded highway), hit the Pentagon with said missile, placed large amounts of airplane wreckage at the site, and did all of this in broad daylight when many of the above activities could be clearly seen.

That plan by itself is pretty damn stupid, but it's even worse when you realize that it would have been infinitely more easy to just crash the plane into the Pentagon. The second scenario wouldn't even contradict their broader beliefs about a 9/11 conspiracy; the only thing they would have to abandon is the belief that a missile struck the Pentagon. Yet they still cling to that view, as convoluted and ridiculous as it is, because they saw a few pictures of the Pentagon lawn after the attack and, well, it just doesn't look how they expected it would.
The first paragraph hits the mark. People look at an incredibly complex situation, choose a certain couple "facts" ("this sort of thing couldn't have happened because...") and then throw out the entire occurence as impossible. This process is contrasted with the following thought process: "well I think certain things couldn't have possibly happened...but they did happen for some reason...maybe I should revisit my theoretical assumptions." Basically it's an attempt at making reality fit theory instead of vice versa...which basically goes against the entire spirit of how our theories have been established.

It's good to see these sorts of things though because it lets you see how people think. Like I said, these threads are pretty interesting...as long as you don't listen to what people say, but instead how they say it.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
JuggerNaught
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
224 - 07-08-2008, 00:03
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
That's great and everything, but it does absolutely nothing to address my argument. What I want to know is why, given the enormous problems I highlighted in my first post, the government would hit the Pentagon with a missile, when it would be much easier to simply crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon to begin with.
Not a missile just not a 757
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
Dat
VeteranX
Old
225 - 07-08-2008, 00:12
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggerNaught View Post
Not a missile just not a 757
Saying that it was a small plane, or whatever, doesn't really give you any advantages over the theory that it was a missile. You still have to explain the passengers and their families. You still have to explain how no one in the crowded area noticed that it wasn't a 757, and why the government would even take such a risk to begin with.

More critically, you have to ask yourself why the government would even lie about such a thing? It is not like the supposed goals of a false flag 9-11 would be threatened if the public thought a plane other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. There is absolutely no reason to try and say it was a 757 to begin with.
 
Dat is offline
 
Last edited by Dat; 07-08-2008 at 00:15..
ScottTheWise13
VeteranX
Old
226 - 07-08-2008, 00:13
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
Saying that it was a small plane, or whatever, doesn't really give you any advantages over the theory that it was a missile. You still have to explain the passengers and their families. You still have to explain how no one in the crowded area noticed that it wasn't a 757, and why the government would even take such a risk to begin with.

More critically, you have to ask yourself why the government would even lie about such a thing to begin with? It is not like the supposed goals of a false flag 9-11 would be threatened if the public thought a plane other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. There is absolutely no reason to try and say it was a 757 to begin with.
but...but...but...NO WAR FOR OIL!!!
 
ScottTheWise13 is offline
 
DocHolliday
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
227 - 07-08-2008, 00:17
Reply With Quote
The only time I ever think that the conspiracy explinations might be correct is when someone is begging me to believe them.

The times I believe it happened the way the media portrated it is when I looked at the available facts on the subject and came to my own opinoin.

EDIT: Haha I love that first Youtube video. Air control for the attacks on 9/11. Those those things are capable of running our ****ing military when the country is in dire need. Why the hell would a plane such as that be needed to cordinate 4 hijacked planes? A ****ing douche with a ham radio could handle that. Sheesh. Talk about overboard.
 
DocHolliday is offline
 
Last edited by DocHolliday; 07-08-2008 at 00:23..
JuggerNaught
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
228 - 07-08-2008, 00:29
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
Why would they do that when they could just abduct a passenger plane like they did with Flights 11 and 175?

What about the identities of the people listed as being aboard Flight 77, were they created out of thin air by the government along with their families?

And again, why would you carry out of all this when the plane would be so easily viewable by so many people?
Ok, now tell me...do YOU know any of the families? Nope. You know of people that you heard about through 2nd, third hand information. Provide to you by a media in desperate need of 'the next big story' to fuel their organizations. If you like, I can make up a passenger manifest for flight 420 with names and everything. I can have a few friends crying on camera about their lost relatives on flight 420 too.
a 757 isn't something you could fly by something like remote control..too big for a precise hit, which would be needed to hit the area that just so happened to be under construction at this time, probably has the flight characteristics of a dump truck with a human at the controls.
But you are to believe that a man without the proper training or experience and by his flight school trainer's account (flight school he flunked out of) 'never going to fly' brought this plane, that he has never sat behind the controls of before, in at 500+ mph, low enough that the rear of the plane didnt flop over into the pentagon, but high enough that the grass wasn't disturbed, in a plane that is taller than the building it hit, adrenaline pumping, looking his death in the eye. And that all 178 feet of this plane's length, and 124 feet of wingspan fit into a hole about 40 feet deep and around 65 feet wide...and evaporated., except for a handful of small pieces.

Oh, and the guys that wanted to fly into the pentagon, a building only miles from the airport they left from, waited until 300 miles later to turn the aircraft around and kill the transponder.
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
JuggerNaught
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
229 - 07-08-2008, 00:33
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
Saying that it was a small plane, or whatever, doesn't really give you any advantages over the theory that it was a missile. You still have to explain the passengers and their families. You still have to explain how no one in the crowded area noticed that it wasn't a 757, and why the government would even take such a risk to begin with.

More critically, you have to ask yourself why the government would even lie about such a thing? It is not like the supposed goals of a false flag 9-11 would be threatened if the public thought a plane other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. There is absolutely no reason to try and say it was a 757 to begin with.
Do you remember the reports of that day? I do. Some people cried missile from the back of a van, some people cried jet fighter. The only consistent story is 'i heard a noise and something went overhead'
The only real evidence is from a video camera at a gas station in front of the pentagon. Its tape was immediately confiscated and has never surfaced. I wonder why?
There is a video from the parking lot that shows a pointy nose, like that of a fighter and you NEVER even see a glimpse of the tale of a 177 foot plane in any of the rest of the footage.
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
ScottTheWise13
VeteranX
Old
230 - 07-08-2008, 00:33
Reply With Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0
zomg conspiracy!! concrete>planes!!
 
ScottTheWise13 is offline
 
ScottTheWise13
VeteranX
Old
231 - 07-08-2008, 00:34
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggerNaught View Post
Do you remember the reports of that day? I do. Some people cried missile from the back of a van, some people cried jet fighter. The only consistent story is 'i heard a noise and something went overhead'
The only real evidence is from a video camera at a gas station in front of the pentagon. Its tape was immediately confiscated and has never surfaced. I wonder why?
There is a video from the parking lot that shows a pointy nose, like that of a fighter and you NEVER even see a glimpse of the tale of a 177 foot plane in any of the rest of the footage.
you've never explained why the government would lie about it being a 757. why wouldn't they just say it was a smaller plane?
 
ScottTheWise13 is offline
 
sLit
VeteranXV
Old
232 - 07-08-2008, 00:36
Reply With Quote
threads like this and the videos in them keep me up at night (same w/ peak oil). there's no way i believe what the government tells me about what happened on sept 11th, but **** me man... i just so don't want to believe anything else =(
 
sLit is offline
 
JuggerNaught
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
233 - 07-08-2008, 00:43
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottTheWise13 View Post
you've never explained why the government would lie about it being a 757. why wouldn't they just say it was a smaller plane?
Sure..and what smaller plane would it be? Lets see...could have been a cessna? Yeah, like that would punch a hole in the pentagon. Days after the 9/11 attacks a kid here in florida off his meds took a cessna into the B.O.A. building...i think he broke a window. Lear jet? possible, enough speed possible, but would the airframe hold up enough to do sizeable damage? Dunno about that one, ask kura.

Plus, the powers that be would have to answer too many questions about why this civvie aircraft was getting a work over in a military shop, unless they planned on doing this somewhere else. If this thing is going to be RC, you're not going to slap it together in the parking lot, you're going to need the proper place and you can make a military craft, that is fueled by highly explosive jp8 (making larger damage) blend into a military environment with no questions a hell of a lot easier than explaining why a civvie aircraft is getting worked over. We've already got the tech and knowledge to fly a sizeable RC craft, we're doing it now in iraq. So its not like the skills and tech aren't available. But less questions would be asked about an older military fighter (as an example) was getting fitted with that kind of stuff than a civvie prop plane.

How would you explain a military craft? Would that really piss people off, that the pentagon got hit by one of our own planes? Enough to spur the country into war? As much as a plane full of good ol' apple pie eating americans forced into dying this way by dirty arabs?

Its all about presentation.
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
Dat
VeteranX
Old
234 - 07-08-2008, 00:45
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggerNaught View Post
Do you remember the reports of that day? I do. Some people cried missile from the back of a van, some people cried jet fighter. The only consistent story is 'i heard a noise and something went overhead'
The only real evidence is from a video camera at a gas station in front of the pentagon. Its tape was immediately confiscated and has never surfaced. I wonder why?
There is a video from the parking lot that shows a pointy nose, like that of a fighter and you NEVER even see a glimpse of the tale of a 177 foot plane in any of the rest of the footage.
The video from the gas station has been released

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml/

There isn't really anything in your post that would contradict the account that a 757 hit the pentagon. The thing I'd like you to answer is why the government would say that a 757 hit the pentagon, making things much more difficult for themselves, when they could just say that a smaller plane hit the pentagon and get the same effect.
 
Dat is offline
 
Dat
VeteranX
Old
235 - 07-08-2008, 00:55
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggerNaught View Post
Ok, now tell me...do YOU know any of the families? Nope. You know of people that you heard about through 2nd, third hand information. Provide to you by a media in desperate need of 'the next big story' to fuel their organizations. If you like, I can make up a passenger manifest for flight 420 with names and everything. I can have a few friends crying on camera about their lost relatives on flight 420 too.
a 757 isn't something you could fly by something like remote control..too big for a precise hit, which would be needed to hit the area that just so happened to be under construction at this time, probably has the flight characteristics of a dump truck with a human at the controls.
But you are to believe that a man without the proper training or experience and by his flight school trainer's account (flight school he flunked out of) 'never going to fly' brought this plane, that he has never sat behind the controls of before, in at 500+ mph, low enough that the rear of the plane didnt flop over into the pentagon, but high enough that the grass wasn't disturbed, in a plane that is taller than the building it hit, adrenaline pumping, looking his death in the eye. And that all 178 feet of this plane's length, and 124 feet of wingspan fit into a hole about 40 feet deep and around 65 feet wide...and evaporated., except for a handful of small pieces.

Oh, and the guys that wanted to fly into the pentagon, a building only miles from the airport they left from, waited until 300 miles later to turn the aircraft around and kill the transponder.
You could do that, but any idiot could see through the lie pretty quickly. Think about this for a second: to fake that passenger list would involve faking the names of the crew as well. The airline would know right off the bat whether the listed people actually worked there or not.

As for his ability to fly the plane, the man was apparently good enough to complete a "challenging certification flight."
 
Dat is offline
 
Last edited by Dat; 07-08-2008 at 01:04..
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
236 - 07-08-2008, 01:00
Reply With Quote
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
JuggerNaught
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
237 - 07-08-2008, 01:10
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
The video from the gas station has been released

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml/

There isn't really anything in your post that would contradict the account that a 757 hit the pentagon. The thing I'd like you to answer is why the government would say that a 757 hit the pentagon, making things much more difficult for themselves, when they could just say that a smaller plane hit the pentagon and get the same effect.
Are they going to say that a cessna hit the pentagon and left that gaping hole? who would care? just another crackpot..forgotten in a week. Are they going to say that a u.s. military jet hit the pentagon? That would raise a few eyebrows, but is that going to have the u.s. citizenry screaming for the heads of those dirty arabs and give carte blanch to the military to move troops to the middle east?

Do you remember what happened after 9/11? People were screaming for us to get troops mobilized and attack. That wouldnt have happened if it were anything other than a civvie plane full of people. The kind of plane that every person in the country that flies commercially has probably been on 'gasp! that could have been me or my family!!'
 
JuggerNaught is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
238 - 07-08-2008, 01:18
Reply With Quote
Truthers are like religious nuts...except whereas religious nuts are willing to believe crap that makes no sense, at least the stuff they believe in happened so long ago as to erase good records of the events leaving much room for interpretation. On the other hand, truthers believe retarded crap that makes no sense even though there are mountains of information available contradicting them and then choose to believe the most unlikely scenarios because these fit into their view of how physics/politics/whatever "really is".
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
Snoobper
VeteranX
Old
239 - 07-08-2008, 01:24
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat View Post
The video from the gas station has been released

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml/
01/01/93

 
Snoobper is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
240 - 07-08-2008, 01:25
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
This is true ^^ (A colleague of mine was one of the consultants on the investigation that developed the NIST report)

Along with the other stuff as well... It's a very interesting read, probably public viewing somewhere on the net. I can't distribute the report itself.
I will back this up as a career firefighter. Look in to some of the problems firefighters have when combating open web steel truss fires. Open web steel truss is common in buildings with large open areas like "box stores" (Best Buy) or supermarkets or warehouses, since it allows virtually unimpeded floor space due to not needing additional structural support members vertically.

As the steel heats it begins to bend and lose integrity.
 
james is offline
 
Page 12 of 13
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [9/11] Let's have a discussion.

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
aj is a pedophile , brontez = complete idiot , here is what i believe , incoming conspiracy fucks , jews did 9/11 , lalala cant hear you , missle , orbital123tinfoil , robert plant , sheeple , suicidetaxi is god , tinfoil


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16.