EPTBush Conspiracy Video - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On March 04 2006 09:40 eG)HeavenS wrote: The pole which clipped a wing at an airport was firmly seated in the ground. The poles struck on the freeway were only bolted to the surface of the ground, they can pop right off from even a car hitting them. As a result not enough resistance was provided to completely sheer off a wing. Hell, maybe that helps explain where the wings went in the first place, everyones great mystery. Maybe they did clip the wings, and since the plane was flying so fast, the vortex produced behind it actually pulled the wings inward and the plane torpedo'd its way into the building, wings following in right behind/beside it. Once inside all toppled on top of each other they were easily burned away.if the plane that hit the pentagon did tear down any light poles, how come its wings weren't clipped off by the poles like the it happene to some other plane in a similar incident. Im not seriously arguing this, but i honestly dont think it's entirely unrealistic. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
The missile answers the question why there was a shockwave and why people smelled cordite. if there's another explanation, great, tell me. a) A missile hits the pentagon. b) the cia drives out in trucks and promptly removes 4-6 light poles and lays them on the ground to prove an airplane hit them without anybody seeing it c) plants some small amounts of phony airplane wreckage at the crash site, d) and detonates a few thousand gallons of kerosene with cordite, among some other explosive (as this would not be enough to significantly damage the building). a) that's what the video suggests because it explains 2 things as said above b) as said further above this sounds weird, improbable c) what the video suggests d) no need, the missile took care of that. and aside from that: you act like: if there are some flaws in their explanation, the whole explanation is wrong and everything in the video is worthless. but that'd also hold for the other side. There are obvious flaws in the official explanation. However, since I know that theories are seldom completely true, I'm willing to accept the other side of the story if there are just some incoherencies. Sadly there's ton of them. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 04 2006 09:47 DTDominion wrote: Still though, when logically thought out, I think you do eventually reach the obvious conclusion that it was either cell phone or faked. True, it takes the angle of the truck, not the missile, but that still doesn't change the fact that it presents massive amounts of evidence that it WAS a plane. aha, now if it's true that calls from cell phones are impossible from 32,000ft which I have no reason to believe that it's not, there's only one option left: fake. that's what the video suggests and that'd rip a major hole in the official version of what happened. why fake so many phone calls? quote the evidence and I'll try to refute it. And try not to use the word obviously in your next post, nothing is obvious here. | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
 But just to throw in an other fuel bricket: who else thinks it's funny how the same model planes that hit the Towers and made nice full-width imprints of wings and fuselage in the walls managed to disappear into a tiny hole when confronted with the walls of the Pentagon? Now either accept the theory of a plane being able to bring down a gazillion-storey building to the ground in a raging Fireball of Inferno (lvl 10 spell, aquired after Firebolt lvl 8 and Magic Power lvl 5) or go with the theory that a plane melts down completely and vanishes into a tiny hole it punched. If you accept first, there can't possibly be a Pentagon still standing there to this day. If you accept second there should now be 2 circular patches on the sides of the Towers as a memorandum of a pathetic attempt to bring a building down with a plane. You can't acept both. Coz they contradict each other you know. Quite strongly too. However that's all unnecessary even, after all, once you realise how the whole cell-phones issue is a lie it just goes nicely from there... -Mynock | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
1) Light poles, which we all aggree now is a very very thin argument. 2) Lack of plane wreckage. The lack of wreckage is a good one, but remember, this is a plane, it is meant to be lighter than air, despite the fact it weighs a few hundred tons, it is built out of the utmost lightweight and and thinnest materials possible to ensure successful flight without compromising the integrity of the plane. Did you know for awhile, the biggest argument against having armed air martials on board was because the discharge of a firearm could easily send a bullet through the fuselage, causing a massive decompression in flight and basically blowing out an entire section of the cabin and likely result in the death of many if not everybody on board? Planes are light weight shit, and can easily be burned away by the incredibly volatile fuel which they carry. I have no problems believing an airliner can completely disintegrate when burned alive in an inclosed area. Other than this, all we have are eye-witness records and testominies as to what people heard. Well eye-witness is about the only useful thing here, and the stories are all too scattered. In my opinion, none of them should be believed, not even the ones who say they saw a kid waving at them from the 53rd window on american airlines. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On March 04 2006 09:58 distant_voice wrote: 32,000 feet is cruising altitude. Im not sure when the calls were made, but the plane obviously descended at some point, to only a few thousand feet off the ground, as we all see the plane come in to crash. Does the video or any information you have mention the time of the calls made in relation to where the plane was and subsequently its altitude? Maybe all the people began phoning home after the plane was officially hijacked an enroute to its desination, the wtc, by which time they were at an acceptable altitude to place phone calls.aha, now if it's true that calls from cell phones are impossible from 32,000ft which I have no reason to believe that it's not, there's only one option left: fake. that's what the video suggests and that'd rip a major hole in the official version of what happened. why fake so many phone calls? quote the evidence and I'll try to refute it. And try not to use the word obviously in your next post, nothing is obvious here. And mynock, as for why the wings didnt gash into the sides like they do with the WTC, keep in mind, the WTC's were most definately not constructed with severel feet thick of reinforced concrete like the pentagon was. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 04 2006 09:50 NewbSaibot wrote: distant_voice, yea i missed the part about the military personnel themselves claiming to smell cordite. As for eye-witness accounts, for the few which claim they saw a silvery flash, a lot more claim they saw a jet of some sort, or at least a missile. For anyone to see a silvery flash at all, they would have had to have been looking directly at the impact site to see what happened. As such, they should have also seen what hit it, i mean it only makes sense. Whether or not they can tell the difference between a commuter jet, airliner, or cruise missile is irrelevant, none of the people who saw a flash mention they saw anything fly into the building at all. They seem to think it was a bomb planted internally or something. You see all these various and wild contradictions? I mean, obviously they cant all be right, which means some of these people are REALLY REALLY wrong about what they saw. People are fickle like that, and as a result, i hardly ever believe what they say. Everyone always see's something different, therefore exclude them entirely from the facts, because they are too confusing. Instead, focus on what you have, evidence, tangible factual evidence, not what some guy said. true, it's unfortunate that the government holds back the videos from the cameras that recorded the impact. Everything could probably cleared up by looking at them. the 5 frames they did publish show the impact, but no plane. I think the cameras on the hotel would have a better angle as they're farer away. A tomahawk missile uses a mini jet engine to fly, not solid fuel (which would be like a toy rocket or one fired from a jet). Tomahawk missiles fly very far and as a result need a more effecient propulsion system, whereas solid fuel rockets are built for speed and short distance. If any missile hit the pentagon a tomahawk would be the best choice, it is slow flying, very accurate, and designed for that purpose. Yet there is relatively little reason to believe one actually hit the pentagon, at least if you factor in what i mention in my previous post. Remember, a tomahawk missile would not produce a large fireball on impact, so if a missile did indeed strike, it had to have been followed up with the burn off of a large quantity of fuel, like a few hundred barrels of gasoline somewhere in the building. I just dont see a reason to believe this. I'm not sure, but the building in the video that got hit by a T-Missile burned badly as well. Why would there be a need for so much gasoline to explain the fire? and if it really was jet fuel, why's the smell of cordite so prevailing? they say in the video that the two smells are easily distinguishable. A Missile would also explain that whatever made the impact when through so many walls (compare the video at 23:12). it has been suggested that the engines are responsible for that hole, but if they are, why weren't they found? they couldn't've vaporized after tearing such a hole. | ||
|
HeavenS
Colombia2259 Posts
| ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
so let's say they're stalling and the probability of placing a call is getting higher. 30 calls? I don't believe that. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
distant_voice said:I'm not sure, but the building in the video that got hit by a T-Missile burned badly as well. Why would there be a need for so much gasoline to explain the fire? and if it really was jet fuel, why's the smell of cordite so prevailing? they say in the video that the two smells are easily distinguishable. A Missile would also explain that whatever made the impact when through so many walls (compare the video at 23:12). I just dont have an answer for that. All im saying is, a cruise missile does not produce a fireball like what we see what in impacts. Sure it can set stuff on fire as a result of it exploding, but what we see explode, from the 5 frames of the security camera, was some type of fuel, plain and simple, and a lot of it. The only way a missile could have done this would be to strike a fuel depository at that location all meant to simulate a jet impact. I guess it's possible.it has been suggested that the engines are responsible for that hole, but if they are, why weren't they found? they couldn't've vaporized after tearing such a hole. Yes, releasing the hotel camera footage would be do oh such much justice for this argument and even the peoples faith in the government at all. But lets go back to an earlier argument i made yesterday, about the military's unwillingness to share any information no matter how seemingly benign to the public. The pentagon was a special building, built for attack. Unlike the WTC which threw in a few safety precautions "just in case", the pentagon was always known to be a direct target, so it was constructed in a myriad of ways to sustain heavy abuse. Perhaps the way in which they jet crashed into it, demonstrated another vulnerability to its design they were unaware of at the time. Again, this has never really happened before, nobody has ever gotten to test a jet airplane or such size smashing into a building at such speed. Every part of its design was hypothetical. The nice brilliant aerial video from the 50th floor of a hotel clearly showing a plane crash into it might give ideas to future attacks. The next time someone wants to crash a plane or anything into it, might be able to figure out a more destructive attack based on how the plane strikes the building. All the information on how the WTC were constructed and how they are protected and even how they were destroyed is and will be made public, so that future designers can better construct a building. But the pentagon blueprints will forever remain secret, they dont want people knowing how that building is constructed, or destroyed. | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
B.) A missile. Missiles travel at very high speeds, and so the vortex behind it could arguably damage the lightpoles. Fly a missile by a tree, and the tree will be ripped apart. Drive next to a semi-tractor/trailer truck in a compact, and you will be sucked towards the body of the trailer. Either that, or the lightpoles were manually damaged. The way in which they bent makes my BS detector overheat. Sorry, but wind doesn't cause metal to bend in such a neat fashion, nor does a collision. The lightpole hit by an actual plane was merely cut in half. These were bent, and had a hole. My conclusion: A missile hits the Pentagon, fake wreckage is placed there, and the U.S. Government lies to the American people. I can't explain the lightpoles, other than that a plane hitting it didn't cause that, but the vortex from a missile passing could, although it couldn't cause the holes seen. The entire scene was fabricated. | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
Here is a rather detailed and complete article dealing with the events at Pentagon: Clickey I especially like the part that explains the lack of debris and scorching of the area by the use of PentaLawn2000. <- Click. -Mynock | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
The building also fell under the pull of gravity, meaning that the buildings fell from the bottom. They appear to fall from the top, but then again every building destroyed via demolitions appears to fall that way. Therefore, the building was kicked out at the feet, using alternate charges, which were heard by almost every person at the site of the attacks. Now, let's say for just a moment that the buildings did collapse as a result of burning jet fuel. All proof aside to refute this claim, let's just consider it. Now, ~20% of the building begins to fall (from where the plane hit and up). It is being supported by the other ~70%+ of the building, yes? Last time I checked, I can support 20% of my weight. Everyone can. Hell even my cat could. The building did not fall because 70% of the building couldn't support 20%. Oh, and don't even tell me a fireball was able to travel down the elevator shafts and destroy the bottom of the building. Incendiary blasts are comprised of two things: 1.) Fire, and 2.) more fire. They have no concussive blast whatsoever. The elvator shafts are airtight, and so fire would not surivive. Plus, if a fireball did fly down the elevator shaft, there wouldn't be much jet fuel to feed the fire on the 78th floor. Conclusion: The planes hit the two towers, they collapse perfectly, as if it was planned, then we blame Al Qaeda and begin reviewing the terrorists who died in the attacks. Oh, no, wait, they're still alive. Sorry. Yeah. Bush needs to resign. | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
Huk, I dunno what you see, but I actually see the missile right there Pentanium CableSpools to match your Pentalawn 2000 This basically left me feel ignorant compared to what there is to know on the topic  -Mynock | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a59/distant_voice/pentagon_cctv.gif) see the flash? is that the flash you'd expect from a missile or is that normal? I can't judge, it'd be great if someone could dig up a clip of a Tomohawk missile hitting a building. And there's another point that backs up the missile theory: the manouvres that the plane allegedly made are impossible for a plane of that size. quite easy for a missile though. compare the video from 12:45 on. | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On March 01 2006 15:00 -_- wrote: If you're serious, you're a moron. Here's a fact: When somebody shows a obvious, malignant bias against a group of people, they're probably biased against that group of people. El oh el that's crazy roflmaniaz! Again, If you're not serious, I apologize. But if you think there are undisputable facts that there is a big conspiracy, compile them, and send them to every media outlet in the world. Sure it'll take a lot of trouble, but you'll go down in history. Or is every news station, news paper, and internet site part of this conspiracy? Or maybe they're just too stupid to understand facts? Are you the only uncorrupted beacon of sanity and reason left in the world? Get a clue. As usual, you are misinformed and naive. Your statement makes it patently obvious you have no first-hand or even second-hand experience in the serious dissemination of news stories through respectable media channels. The major media conglomerates that dictate the lion's share of most people's attention have a vested interest in being selective about what they report. The profit motive is a far stronger impetus than any self-righteous mission statement about reporting "truth". As for the "alternative" media channels that the ignorant fucks who dominate the web place so much faith in, they are marginal at best in their ability to insinuate their stories into the collective consciousness of mainstream society. That's just the way it is. | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
| ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
 -Mynock | ||
| ||
