Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Dreadful Imposture
Options
Comments
-
""In Washington, as efforts continued to recover bodies from the Pentagon disaster site, officials announced that 190 bodies, including 64 from the airliner that slammed into the building, would be removed to Dover Airforce Base, in Delaware. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, the site of the fourth airplane crash, authorities identified wreckage six miles from where the plane went down. ""
Waow 6 miles ... But they still could get M. Atta's passport on ground 0
My question remains. If they have found bodies, why can't we see the plane crashing on the security camera, why the hole is not the size of a Boeing etc ...0 -
-
"Whilst I always was of the conviction that this plane was brought down by some rather brave passengers, wreckage that far out would be typical of some sort of explosion in the air in addition to the crash - which would hint at the possibility of USAF intervention in eliminating the threat of further destruction?"
Nice one Lemming. Then another prb comes up : why is Bin Laden accusing himself of masterminding the crash on a plane on the Pentagone ?
........................
Talking about falling for stupid theories, I don't believe one sec that BL would buy a video camera to film his friends and himself. It s more american like to by a camescope
Moreover, everybody knows that Bin Laden has SERIOUS health prb and he has to go regularly to hospital which u cannot find in Afghanistan, so why the hell US assumed he would hide over there ...
Let s please come up with some ideas everybody , a bit more than : 'u live in fairyland' or 'Hug' (as I saw earlier) 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by OhMyGod
Fair enough, but if I use the same kind of thinking, I ll ask you to tell me where is the rest of the plane ? Why the boeing went through the twins but they just made a small hole on the pentagone ? And while we re at it , where is Bin Laden ( on the moon ? )? Why can't we see any plane crashing on the security camera which is outside the building ?
Where is the rest of the Plane?
What rest? Most of it will have impacted into a small area, and melted during the fire. The melting point of aluminium is quite low, compared to the heat generated by jetfuel in a confined space.
Before you talk about the "rest of the plane" you must show that there should be a "rest". The theory only claims that there "should" be, appealing to common sense. Most people compare this to a plane splashing somewhere (with debris over 6 miles) which is completely incorrect. Thats like comparing an F1 car going off the track, rolling and rumbling to one which ploughs into a wall at speed. Simple fact is that the damage is completely different, as is the debris spread.
Why the boeing went through the twins but they just made a small hole on the pentagone ?
becase the twin towers had a central solid core, with a very flimsy building hung off it, the outside of which was mostly glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, is made of reinforced concrete. Throw a baseball at a window. Now throw it at a wall. Is the damage to both the same? No - I didnt think so. Now, get something capable of damaging the brick wall. Get two of them, and put them as engines on a hollowed body made of something very soft. I know - lets use a paper-roll insert. Fire this at velicity at a window and at a brick wall. What do you see? A big hole in the window, and two small engine-sized holes in your brick wall. Not an airplane-sized hole - two engine-sized ones.
where is Bin Laden
I dont know what this has to do with the crash, but the odds of finding bin Laden were always remote. Anyone who claimed otherwise was issuing media-spin.
Why can't we see any plane crashing on the security camera which is outside the building ?
You can, if you look. First image, right hand side. Mostly hidden by a car-barrier. You can make out part of the fuselage. Given that security cameras work on low resolution and low framerate, it is improbable that the plane would appear on more than one frame.
Now - none of this proves it beyond doubt, but here's the kicker...lets take a slight variation of Reef's question about the plane.
1) Two planes did attack the WTC. This is pretty much beyond question. Whether it was a terrorist attack or something made to look like one is questionable.
2) A plane did splash in Delaware. Coincidence is a bit much to ask for here. so either it was deliberately splashed to provide credibility to the whole terrorist attack story, or the terrorist theory is true. These are pretty much our options here, with nothing to decide either way.
3) Another plane either hit the Pentagon or went missing.
Heres where I have the problem with the conspiracy theory : who is behind the plane's disappearance. It doesnt make sense that the attackers were behind it, because then we'd be saying that they made it look like a plane crash (although it wasnt), but they still stole/splashed a plane to add credibility. This would be stupid. If they were stealing the plane, then why not use it.
So - we must assume that the US "reaction" was behind the plane's disappearance. So, what we're saying is that the US were attacked, announced it was a truck bomb, then decided to "cash in" on these plane attacks which were going on, picked a plane, and made it disappear. Then they faked the security camera evidence, personal testimony, etc. etc. Why didnt they simply say "it was a truck bomb by the same ppl who flew planes into the WTC".
It doesnt make sense. It doesnt make sense that the US would react in that way, nor that the attackers would plan that way. In fact, it ends up asking more questions than it answers.
jc0 -
Originally posted by OhMyGod
Talking about falling for stupid theories, I don't believe one sec that BL would buy a video camera to film his friends and himself. It s more american like to by a camescope
Actually, in most reports, it is claimed the bin Laden was not aware he was being taped, or that he ws being taped by a "fan" follower.
Also, VCRs and cameras were quite common in Afghanistan before the Taliban came to power and restricted everything. This would help explain the poor quality - it would have been an old camera, probably with the heads in need of cleaning.Moreover, everybody knows that Bin Laden has SERIOUS health prb and he has to go regularly to hospital which u cannot find in Afghanistan, so why the hell US assumed he would hide over there ...
Oh - you mean the kidney problems which were only ever mentioned after September 11, and which the US have denounced on the grounds that there is no evidence whatsoever (othher than a "recurring rumour") to indicate that it is a genuine illness. A denounciation, which, as far as I am aware, no-one has refuted yet.
This is a ridiculous argument. If bin Laden had this problem, then he had it prior to Sep 11. If he could not receive attention in Afghanistan, then the US simply had to look for him in major nearby hospitals. Given that the alleged problem was kidney-related, its highly unlikely that bin Laden could ever have strayed far from a hospital - which means that he would have been caught long before Sep 11 for his previous crimes.
jc0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
0
Advertisement