PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change conspiracy



ChiefAD
04-25-2014, 06:31 PM
I just saw this documentary on Netflix and there are so many unanswered questions that contradict what was provided by our government.

Does anybody feel there is more to the story of 9/11 or just another conspiracy theory that plays with people's minds? As a public servant, I have a strong national pride to my country but at the same time, I do not think I could be so ignorant as to how malicious governments could become. That is why I do not have any political affiliation and will remain an independent to the day I leave this earth.

The death of Barry Jennings is highly suspicious.

Does any event on 9/11 seem obscure to you?

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/

http://deadlinelive.info/2009/04/16/new-information-on-the-death-of-911-eyewitness-barry-jennings-seems-to-point-to-foul-play/

MrMiracle
04-25-2014, 06:45 PM
The only answer that will ever satisfy a conspiracy theorist is "you're right".

meatbringer
04-25-2014, 07:03 PM
I just saw this documentary on Netflix and there are so many unanswered questions that contradict what was provided by our government.

Does anybody feel there is more to the story of 9/11 or just another conspiracy theory that plays with people's minds? As a public servant, I have a strong national pride to my country but at the same time, I do not think I could be so ignorant as to how malicious governments could become. That is why I do not have any political affiliation and will remain an independent to the day I leave this earth.

The death of Barry Jennings is highly suspicious.

Does any event on 9/11 seem obscure to you?

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/

http://deadlinelive.info/2009/04/16/new-information-on-the-death-of-911-eyewitness-barry-jennings-seems-to-point-to-foul-play/

The one thing that bothers me the most regarding 9/11 is the evidence of demolition charges being the actual cause of the buildings coming down. I'm sure many people have seen pictures of I-beams being cut perfectly and diagonally on different consipracy theory movies, but I have personally seen physical photos of the scene that reflect this. A friend of mine's father is NYPD and is one of the many who were there during the events. During the cleanup he took many pictues of the scene.

There is also the situation at the Pentagon where the entire scene was covered with stone and dirt by dump trucks immediately following the "plane" that hit.

NORAD anyone? Building 7?

TJMAC77SP
04-25-2014, 07:12 PM
The one thing that bothers me the most regarding 9/11 is the evidence of demolition charges being the actual cause of the buildings coming down. I'm sure many people have seen pictures of I-beams being cut perfectly and diagonally on different consipracy theory movies, but I have personally seen physical photos of the scene that reflect this. A friend of mine's father is NYPD and is one of the many who were there during the events. During the cleanup he took many pictues of the scene.

There is also the situation at the Pentagon where the entire scene was covered with stone and dirt by dump trucks immediately following the "plane" that hit.

NORAD anyone? Building 7?

There are so many things that can be said to refute the myriad of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 but in relation to pre-planted charges in the WTC I simply ask........................What would be the tonnage of explosives required to execute such a demolition and then consider the miles of det cord also needed? How long would it take to plant such explosives? How would that be hidden in a building occupied nearly 24/7 and with a 24/7 security force?

Rusty Jones
04-25-2014, 07:26 PM
I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, in fact... I hate conspiract theories with a compassion.

However, 9/11 is different. I really do believe that it was a missile that hit the Pentago, and not a plane. The hole in the Pentagon was not big enough for a plane to have gone through. Has anyone seen a plane sticking out of the building? Parts of the airplane laying around? No? Why?

A closer look at the airplanes that hit the twin towers shows that they were not passenger planes. The claim as that the hijackers used box cutters to keep the passengers in order... and even told the passengers that they were going to die.

I'm sorry but... put yourself in the passengers situation. In that situation, is a box cutter going to deter you from and getting up and stomping a mudhole in his ass? Is it going to stop you and a hundred other passengers from making quick work of two men with box cutters?

There was also an explosion that occurred inside of at least one of the buildings before the plane hit. But the video in slow motion, and you can actually see it.

By the way, if you think the government would never do such a thing, you might want to read up on Operation Northwoods - which was declassified in the late 90's. In the early 60's, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to organize acts of terrorism throughout cities across the US and even sink a few Navy ships (with Sailors on them), and blame it on Cuba. The sole purpose being to justify an invasion of Cuba to the American people.

Thankfully, JFK rejected it. But think... all he had to do was say "yes," and it would've happened.

ChiefAD
04-25-2014, 07:29 PM
The one thing that bothers me the most regarding 9/11 is the evidence of demolition charges being the actual cause of the buildings coming down. I'm sure many people have seen pictures of I-beams being cut perfectly and diagonally on different consipracy theory movies, but I have personally seen physical photos of the scene that reflect this. A friend of mine's father is NYPD and is one of the many who were there during the events. During the cleanup he took many pictues of the scene.

There is also the situation at the Pentagon where the entire scene was covered with stone and dirt by dump trucks immediately following the "plane" that hit.

NORAD anyone? Building 7?

Well, my confusion lies is that I have watched so many news reports of plane crashes since I was a kid and always saw debris and wreckage but with two out of the floor plane crashes, there is no plane wreckage or no plane at all. Just a notion that a plane was pulverized to the point of plane and people disintegrating.

meatbringer
04-25-2014, 07:52 PM
There are so many things that can be said to refute the myriad of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 but in relation to pre-planted charges in the WTC I simply ask........................What would be the tonnage of explosives required to execute such a demolition and then consider the miles of det cord also needed? How long would it take to plant such explosives? How would that be hidden in a building occupied nearly 24/7 and with a 24/7 security force?

Dude, your guess is as good as mine. All I"m saying is that there are no kidding pictures of the I-beams cut perfectly in a diagonal. Quite a few demolition experts have gone on record saying that it is the most obvious sign that it was controlled detonation. There are also the survivors of 9/11 who, when interviewed, stated that the ifrst explosion came from underneath with such a force that it lifted them off the ground. This was immediately before the planes hit the buildings. I wouldn't put it past the government to kill a few thousand of us in order to benefit themselves.

TJMAC77SP
04-25-2014, 11:01 PM
Well, obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion but I just don't buy it. At some point there is a leap of faith needed to believe the conspiracies and I just don't buy it. For every 'expert' who states a nefarious series of actions there is at least one (and generally more than one) who states the opposite.

It is akin the Oliver Stone's "JFK" (which laughingly he still considers more of a documentary than work of fiction). The scene where Donald Sutherland outlines the entire conspiracy to Kevin Costner says it all. Hundreds if not thousands of people involved.............not a chance. Anyone who has been involved in classified operations knows that just does not happen..............ever.

I was on travel on 9/11 (so wasn't in the office and was watching TV at 0850) and remember GMA coming back from commercial break and showing a distance shot of the first tower hit. No one on air at that point knew for sure what had happened but Charlie Gibson was saying unconfirmed reports were saying a plane had hit the tower and the cast were talking about small planes. At that point they switched to a camera that must have been on a helicopter and it showed the impact point. I remember thinking to myself...."that was no Cessna that hit".

See for yourself.



3789



3788

meatbringer
04-26-2014, 05:58 AM
There was obviously no way that small planes are what hit the towers, but I don't feel that there is any way that this damage would cause the buildings to collapse down on themselves the way they did. Especially buildings that were designed to take such a hit. Then the pentagon getting hit by a "plane" with no evidence or signs of a plane anywhere? Planes and people don't simply vaporize. I'm not saying it's some crazy conspiracy involving thousands of people coordinating, but there is no way I buy the BS the news and politicians are selling about it. Sadly, we will never know the truth.

efmbman
04-26-2014, 02:40 PM
I think the breaking point will be that someone, somewhere will have a attack of conscience. Of all the events of that day, I think the piece that will come to light first is the plane that "crashed" in Pennsylvania. I have a feeling that it will be some kind of death-bed confession that the plane was shot down.

To me, while the event of 9/11 were tragic the lasting legacy is how our country has changed since. After 13 years, try very hard to imagine what life was life on Sept 10, 2001. Since I have hung up the uniform, I have had the chance to do a lot of inspection and introspection. I'm not happy about the course of events over the last 13 years. The worst part is that I know there is nothing at all I can do about it.

TJMAC77SP
04-26-2014, 04:34 PM
There was obviously no way that small planes are what hit the towers, but I don't feel that there is any way that this damage would cause the buildings to collapse down on themselves the way they did. Especially buildings that were designed to take such a hit. Then the pentagon getting hit by a "plane" with no evidence or signs of a plane anywhere? Planes and people don't simply vaporize. I'm not saying it's some crazy conspiracy involving thousands of people coordinating, but there is no way I buy the BS the news and politicians are selling about it. Sadly, we will never know the truth.

Ok, simply for the sake of argument let's concede that no plane actually hitting the Pentagon was witnessed (although that isn't really true. What is true is that the parking lot camera with a slow frame rate didn't capture the plane impacting. There were several people who witnessed the approach and impact. I-395 runs right next to the building.) We KNOW that American Flight 77 took off from Dulles with 64 people on board. We KNOW that the plane is gone as are all the passengers and crew (including the hijackers). We KNOW that the black boxes from that plane were recovered in the Pentagon impact debris.

MrMiracle
04-28-2014, 04:26 PM
Comparing the 9/11 impacts to other crashes is kinda apples/oranges. Most aftermath footage comes from crashes where the pilot actually tried to mitigate the damage and ensure passenger survival. The 9/11 aftermath involved pilots going full-throttle for maximum damage.

Rusty Jones
04-28-2014, 04:54 PM
Comparing the 9/11 impacts to other crashes is kinda apples/oranges. Most aftermath footage comes from crashes where the pilot actually tried to mitigate the damage and ensure passenger survival. The 9/11 aftermath involved pilots going full-throttle for maximum damage.

But then there's Pan Am flight 103, from 1989. Not only did the plane crash on the ground, but there couldn't have been attempt to mitigate damage or loss of life, because the plane crashed as a result of the bombing... so everyone was already dead anyway.

Yet, there was still a wrecked plane to be found.

Rusty Jones
04-28-2014, 05:00 PM
Operation Northwoods is the big elephant in the room. Again, anyone who thinks that 9/11 couldn't have been an "inside job" needs to take a look at that.

I'm not going to make assertions on what 9/11 is or isn't, but I will say that I believe that there's a lot to 9/11 that Americans aren't being told... whether there's more to the story, or if Americans have been completely lied to. The truth is out there, and I don't believe Americans have all of it... if we even have any of it.

TJMAC77SP
04-28-2014, 10:05 PM
Operation Northwoods is the big elephant in the room. Again, anyone who thinks that 9/11 couldn't have been an "inside job" needs to take a look at that.

I'm not going to make assertions on what 9/11 is or isn't, but I will say that I believe that there's a lot to 9/11 that Americans aren't being told... whether there's more to the story, or if Americans have been completely lied to. The truth is out there, and I don't believe Americans have all of it... if we even have any of it.

So assuming that 9/11 was reminiscent to the concept of Operation Northwoods (which of course is one of many scenarios developed in offices in DoD) who is it that approved it?

Monkey
04-28-2014, 10:31 PM
But then there's Pan Am flight 103, from 1989. Not only did the plane crash on the ground, but there couldn't have been attempt to mitigate damage or loss of life, because the plane crashed as a result of the bombing... so everyone was already dead anyway.

Yet, there was still a wrecked plane to be found.

There is a significant difference in the velocity of an airplane falling out of the sky and an airplane flying at full-throttle/maximum thrust.

Chief_KO
04-28-2014, 10:55 PM
I'm not a scientist, engineer, nor highly degreed...
But here's my layman answers:
1. Debris from 103 was found because the plane blew up in air, bits & pieces sent airborne at altitude, where they fell to earth. I'd guess that some parts were not on fire and plummeted to earth no problem...much like a spacecraft, rocket, asteroid. Debris from both Towers and the Pentagon was "self-contained within the buildings, fueled by the near full fuel tanks...
2. If I remember, the WTC were constructed in a very unique way, no true skeleton of steel separate from the walls, etc. This was to maximize the floorspace, but unfortunately was a key factor in the building's pancake/collapse, which of course spewed millions of tons of "stuff" for miles and miles and miles.
3. Videos (news cameras & amatuers) along with eyewitnesses captured all three planes hitting their targets.
4. The overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists (IMO) are simply doing so for anyone of the following reasons: distrust of government, profit, or both.

efmbman
04-29-2014, 12:25 AM
3. Videos (news cameras & amatuers) along with eyewitnesses captured all three planes hitting their targets.

Please post a link to footage of the impact at the Pentagon. I'm not talking about the stop-motion "video" from the parking camera.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 12:32 AM
So assuming that 9/11 was reminiscent to the concept of Operation Northwoods (which of course is one of many scenarios developed in offices in DoD) who is it that approved it?

Beats me. But I'm not gonna jump the gun and say that it was Bin Laden or Al Qaeda at all, like most would.

Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, we'd have been told that Cuba did it and most Americans would have bought it.

We only "know" what we're told.

efmbman
04-29-2014, 12:40 AM
An addendum:


4. The overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists (IMO) are simply doing so for anyone of the following reasons: distrust of government, profit, or both.

Any chance there may be a profit motive for creating an incident that directly led to a 12-year, multi-billion dollar war? Time has shown that one of the main reasons US involvement in Vietnam was escalated turned out to be based on a fictitious report (USS Maddox & the Gulf of Tonkin). For that matter, read up on the USS Maine at anchor in Havana. It was blown up by "saboteurs" and led to the Spanish-American War.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 12:42 AM
There is a significant difference in the velocity of an airplane falling out of the sky and an airplane flying at full-throttle/maximum thrust.

What is that velocity? I know that passenger planes typically cruise at 650 mph, but I'm assuming these planes were travelling much slower in order to hit the targets more accurately.

Do you think something that weighs tons and is falling from a mile high isn't going to travel at at least that speed, or somewhere close to it?

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 01:20 AM
Beats me. But I'm not gonna jump the gun and say that it was Bin Laden or Al Qaeda at all, like most would.

Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, we'd have been told that Cuba did it and most Americans would have bought it.

We only "know" what we're told.

I meant who in the US government approved it. I assumed since you referenced the Operations Northwoods plan you were inferring that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government.

You would not be jumping the gun at all in April of 2014 in saying that Bin Laden or Al Qaeda were responsible.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 01:29 AM
What is that velocity? I know that passenger planes typically cruise at 650 mph, but I'm assuming these planes were travelling much slower in order to hit the targets more accurately.

Do you think something that weighs tons and is falling from a mile high isn't going to travel at at least that speed, or somewhere close to it?

You're about 100 mph too fast but I would guess that you are right in assuming all three planes on 9/11 were flying slower

DocBones
04-29-2014, 01:57 AM
---redaction, see below---

DocBones
04-29-2014, 01:57 AM
According to an article on an Air France passenger jet, the speed of the stalled plane was figured at upwards of 100 miles per hour. Well, for those in the know, I do believe that airspeed of jets is figured in nautical miles per hour, which figures out to 1.15 mph being a knot. Therefor, 100 knots is 115mph.

The plane was doing 124, in freefall.

If the plane did a power dive, the speed would be much higher.

I remember seeing some films on crews bailing out of bombers that were falling out of the sky, due to a blown off wing, and other things, during world war 2. The air crewmen were doing about the same speed as the bomber which was freefalling.

The terminal velocity of a human in freefall is 120 mph. So, I guess a shot up or stalled bomber was upwards of 100, just about the same speed of the freefalling air crew member.

So, anyway, add this into y'alls pot of figuring out the speed of a stalled jet, but don't use this for a plane augering in.

The article: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-27-air-france-crash_n.htm

DocBones
04-29-2014, 02:41 AM
If the pilot was bringing the jet down in a power dive, and he wanted to hit whatever at the end of his dive without shedding parts and pieces before the final crash or big ass splash, the speed for most airliners for altitude loss is around 10,000 feet per minute while power diving, give or take. My head isn't into using my calculator, right now. Remember, loss of alitude, plus the planes top speed, maybe? The planes don't do a straight drop, so you guys can figure out the speed, kind of. I am not into figuring out velocities, so you guys can also state this out a lot better than my own poor try.

You know what I mean. I hope. My head is splitting apart from trying to say this stuff as plainly as possibe.

But then, who knows? If someone is hellbent enough to ditch a jetliner in the ocean or into land at the end of a power dive, I can't quite believe that he'd be worried about the intactness of the plane upon augering in.

CYBERFX1024
04-29-2014, 04:38 AM
I am one of those people that will take a close look at what a conspiracy theorist is bringing me before I discount it. I will never just say hey that's crazy before I hear the evidence that they have. But certain 9/11 things do not add up at all.

Yes, we KNOW two planes hit the twin towers. But do I think that they are sole cause of bringing down the towers? Hell No I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that people with freakin' box cutters could take over a plane. If someone did that on the plane I am, I wouldn't give a f*ck if I get cut, that guy is going down. Another thing is there was a guy in the administration whose wife died on one of the planes. Well according to him, he got a phone call from his wife's cell phone while she was in the air, and they talked for a little bit. I know I have tried to make a phone call from a plane when it is low, and it's almost impossible. Also this is 2001 so cell phone technology isn't that great.
How come NOBODY has ever come forward and said that they saw the plane hit the pentagon? All they have is some blurry film that in my eyes looks like a missile and not a plane. Another thing is where were all the body parts and debris from the plane around the pentagon? They have been people that were on duty in the area where the "plane" hit and they have said that they don't think it was a plane either.

I was watching one of these conspiracy shows about 9/11 (I know I know, it was a slow day) and they were talking about how Rumsfeld came forward on 9/10 stating that the Pentagon can not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars. Then on 9/11 everything happens and no one cares or wonders where all that money went off to. That is some big cash to just "lose" and then no one cares to account for it once the GWOT happens. I believe it was a conspiracy but I don't really know why yet, but it might be just to invade the arab world.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 01:23 PM
3788

And here's something else. The planes that hit the towers were claimed to be Boeing 767's. While you can see some detail in this picture, look at this and a few others that were caught of the planes going towards the tower. Note the long bulge that goes along the bottom of the fuselage. A Boeing 767 doesn't have one of those. See for yourself - here's the bottom of a Boeing 767:

http://img.planespotters.net/photo/107000/original/N769VA-Vision-Airlines-Boeing-767-200_PlanespottersNet_107132.jpg

Either the planes that hit the towers were not Boeing 767's, or they were and something was attached to the fuselage. There are claims from eyewitnesses that the planes were not marked as belonging to an airline, nor were there windows along the sides that would indicate that they were passenger planes.

SomeRandomGuy
04-29-2014, 01:55 PM
I am one of those people that will take a close look at what a conspiracy theorist is bringing me before I discount it. I will never just say hey that's crazy before I hear the evidence that they have. But certain 9/11 things do not add up at all.

Yes, we KNOW two planes hit the twin towers. But do I think that they are sole cause of bringing down the towers? Hell No I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that people with freakin' box cutters could take over a plane. If someone did that on the plane I am, I wouldn't give a f*ck if I get cut, that guy is going down. Another thing is there was a guy in the administration whose wife died on one of the planes. Well according to him, he got a phone call from his wife's cell phone while she was in the air, and they talked for a little bit. I know I have tried to make a phone call from a plane when it is low, and it's almost impossible. Also this is 2001 so cell phone technology isn't that great.
How come NOBODY has ever come forward and said that they saw the plane hit the pentagon? All they have is some blurry film that in my eyes looks like a missile and not a plane. Another thing is where were all the body parts and debris from the plane around the pentagon? They have been people that were on duty in the area where the "plane" hit and they have said that they don't think it was a plane either.

I was watching one of these conspiracy shows about 9/11 (I know I know, it was a slow day) and they were talking about how Rumsfeld came forward on 9/10 stating that the Pentagon can not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars. Then on 9/11 everything happens and no one cares or wonders where all that money went off to. That is some big cash to just "lose" and then no one cares to account for it once the GWOT happens. I believe it was a conspiracy but I don't really know why yet, but it might be just to invade the arab world.

Just FYI 2.3 Trillion is probably a little low for the amount of money the DoD cannot account for. In the 2012 Defense Authorization Bill Congress mandated that the DoD should be audit ready. Congress wants an outside firm to take a look at DoD financial statements. A few years ago one of the big accounting firms took a look and said they couldn't issue an opinion because the records are too messed up. This has been a problem since 1995. The Initiative to correct this problem is called FIAR (Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness). As someone who works in finance I am curious to see what happens when we can't meet the 2014 deadline. Here is a link to a 2013 GAO report which still lists the DoD as high risk for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. The sorry state of Financial Management in the DoD wouldn't be a good reason to plan a 9/11 style attack. Everyone knows the DoD accounting system is messed up and honestly no one really seems to care.

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/dod_financial_management/why_did_study#t=1

efmbman
04-29-2014, 02:43 PM
...As someone who works in finance I am curious to see what happens when we can't meet the 2014 deadline.

Nothing will happen.


...The sorry state of Financial Management in the DoD wouldn't be a good reason to plan a 9/11 style attack. Everyone knows the DoD accounting system is messed up and honestly no one really seems to care.

Perhaps, but the distraction of a two theater war for 12 years would certainly put that on the back burner. We all know that an audit of DoD spending during a war would be attacked as taking assets away from troops deployed into harms way. Spin and perception transform accusations into reality in politics. No one wants to be viewed as the person decreasing readiness and ability.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 03:12 PM
And here's something else. The planes that hit the towers were claimed to be Boeing 767's. While you can see some detail in this picture, look at this and a few others that were caught of the planes going towards the tower. Note the long bulge that goes along the bottom of the fuselage. A Boeing 767 doesn't have one of those. See for yourself - here's the bottom of a Boeing 767:


Either the planes that hit the towers were not Boeing 767's, or they were and something was attached to the fuselage. There are claims from eyewitnesses that the planes were not marked as belonging to an airline, nor were there windows along the sides that would indicate that they were passenger planes.

Other than the extremely grainy photos that conspiracy websites use to attempt to claim all sorts of things about the planes what actual evidence of any bulges or lack of airline livery is there? Witnesses clearly refute all of this. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0cL83d408) is a fairly good video of the second plane impacting.......no bulge (other than the landing gear bays). Can't absolutely state it was American or United's livery but it also wasn't black (another silly thing claimed by some 9/11 conspiracy folks).

I kinda thought you were kidding at first. I guess you really do buy into all this nonesense

CYBERFX1024
04-29-2014, 03:13 PM
Just FYI 2.3 Trillion is probably a little low for the amount of money the DoD cannot account for. In the 2012 Defense Authorization Bill Congress mandated that the DoD should be audit ready. Congress wants an outside firm to take a look at DoD financial statements. A few years ago one of the big accounting firms took a look and said they couldn't issue an opinion because the records are too messed up. This has been a problem since 1995. The Initiative to correct this problem is called FIAR (Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness). As someone who works in finance I am curious to see what happens when we can't meet the 2014 deadline. Here is a link to a 2013 GAO report which still lists the DoD as high risk for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. The sorry state of Financial Management in the DoD wouldn't be a good reason to plan a 9/11 style attack. Everyone knows the DoD accounting system is messed up and honestly no one really seems to care.

I agree with you that 2.3 Trillion is probably a low amount for money the DOD cannot account for. But remember this is pre-9/11 so that was a huge a amount then. But then the two theater war happened and probably even more money than that went down the rabbit hole so to speak, never to be seen again. Alot of people got really rich selling single source contracts to the DOD and State Dept for a long time.

I am not saying that rich people planned the attacks, but it does get you mind going alittle bit. Also remember 10 years ago when those "crazy conspiracy theorists" were talking about we are all being spied on? Everybody including myself thought that they were off their rocker. Then lo and behold the NSA really is spying on everybody.

MrMiracle
04-29-2014, 03:42 PM
It depends on the variant. The 767-200ER and 767-300ER both have the bulge you're referring to, which is an enlarged centerline fuel tank. You can find plenty of pictures of them.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 03:42 PM
Other than the extremely grainy photos that conspiracy websites use to attempt to claim all sorts of things about the planes what actual evidence of any bulges or lack of airline livery is there? Witnesses clearly refute all of this. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0cL83d408) is a fairly good video of the second plane impacting.......no bulge (other than the landing gear bays). Can't absolutely state it was American or United's livery but it also wasn't black (another silly thing claimed by some 9/11 conspiracy folks).

Witnesses are claiming that there wasn't a bulge on the fuselage? I can't speak for everyone, but if I was on the ground watching something happen as fast as it did... the last thing I would remember about the incident is whether or not there was a bulge at the bottom. Most people can tell what airline a plane belongs to, or whether or not it's even a passenger plane... but I doubt most people know the different makes and models of aircraft, and what they're supposed to look like.

Sure, it's a little grainy. But the graininess can't hide that bulge. Something just isn't right about that plane simply being just another passenger aircraft that got hijacked.


I kinda thought you were kidding at first. I guess you really do buy into all this nonesense

I don't buy into any specific claims. I'm simply keeping an open mind. It looks like you've already made up your mind to take what you've been told at face value.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 03:45 PM
It depends on the variant. The 767-200ER and 767-300ER both have the bulge you're referring to, which is an enlarged centerline fuel tank. You can find plenty of pictures of them.

One was a 222, the other was was 223ER.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 03:53 PM
The pic I posted was of the 222.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 04:30 PM
Witnesses are claiming that there wasn't a bulge on the fuselage? I can't speak for everyone, but if I was on the ground watching something happen as fast as it did... the last thing I would remember about the incident is whether or not there was a bulge at the bottom. Most people can tell what airline a plane belongs to, or whether or not it's even a passenger plane... but I doubt most people know the different makes and models of aircraft, and what they're supposed to look like.

Sure, it's a little grainy. But the graininess can't hide that bulge. Something just isn't right about that plane simply being just another passenger aircraft that got hijacked.

The same could be said about a bulge in general. Perhaps you could post the photo in which you see clearly a bulge. I can’t find one that isn’t so grainy as to be useless.

Here are a couple of which I speak.

3790

3791




I don't buy into any specific claims. I'm simply keeping an open mind. It looks like you've already made up your mind to take what you've been told at face value.

I would say you have made up your mind that there was a conspiracy and that the report of the 9/11 Commission is not accurate. You have come to the conclusion there were bulges and the planes weren’t passenger aircraft. Isn’t that what you said?

I have an open mind but tend not to see zebras when hearing hoofbeats.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 04:51 PM
The same could be said about a bulge in general. Perhaps you could post the photo in which you see clearly a bulge. I can’t find one that isn’t so grainy as to be useless.

Here are a couple of which I speak.

3790

3791


I was actually using the photos that you posted previously in this thread. The bulge is pretty plain to see in that pic.


I would say you have made up your mind that there was a conspiracy and that the report of the 9/11 Commission is not accurate.

Yes, but that's the furthest extent to which my mind is made up. If you asked me what I believed actually happened, it wouldn't be much more than what I've stated on this thread... it would be pretty vague. I brought up Operation Northwoods for example (and you yourself stated that you know of other proposals in the DoD that are similar), not because I believe that that's what happened... but because it clearly shows that it COULD happen. Again, all JFK had to do was give the thumbs-up, and it would have happened.

If similar proposals have been made over the years, why should we think that there will never be a time where the president says "yes?"

Again, not saying that that's what happened, but we should never think for one second that it can't.


You have come to the conclusion there were bulges and the planes weren’t passenger aircraft. Isn’t that what you said?

That, OR it was a passenger aircraft with something attached to the fuselage. Or it might be a model of passenger airplane other than what they told us, and then we'd have to question why that was the case.


I have an open mind but tend not to see zebras when hearing hoofbeats.

Yet you seem to be challenging anything anyone says that's contrary to the "official" story of 9/11.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 05:42 PM
I was actually using the photos that you posted previously in this thread. The bulge is pretty plain to see in that pic.



Yes, but that's the furthest extent to which my mind is made up. If you asked me what I believed actually happened, it wouldn't be much more than what I've stated on this thread... it would be pretty vague. I brought up Operation Northwoods for example (and you yourself stated that you know of other proposals in the DoD that are similar), not because I believe that that's what happened... but because it clearly shows that it COULD happen. Again, all JFK had to do was give the thumbs-up, and it would have happened.

If similar proposals have been made over the years, why should we think that there will never be a time where the president says "yes?"

Again, not saying that that's what happened, but we should never think for one second that it can't.



That, OR it was a passenger aircraft with something attached to the fuselage. Or it might be a model of passenger airplane other than what they told us, and then we'd have to question why that was the case.



Yet you seem to be challenging anything anyone says that's contrary to the "official" story of 9/11.

You think there is a plainly visible bulge in this picture?

3792

I don't see it. I do see the sun's effect on a shiny blue under-fuselage (since the 'bulge' runs the entire length of the aircraft fuselage).

Actually I challenge everything I have seen posted that 'proves' the official version of the 9/11 report is wrong. There are incredible leaps of faith and logic required to buy into the conspiracies. No one has ever posted anything that adequately proves their theories. When they do I will take it seriously.

Rusty Jones
04-29-2014, 07:24 PM
You think there is a plainly visible bulge in this picture?

3792

I don't see it. I do see the sun's effect on a shiny blue under-fuselage (since the 'bulge' runs the entire length of the aircraft fuselage).

The video footage makes it clear that it's a physical object, and not a glare.


Actually I challenge everything I have seen posted that 'proves' the official version of the 9/11 report is wrong. There are incredible leaps of faith and logic required to buy into the conspiracies. No one has ever posted anything that adequately proves their theories. When they do I will take it seriously.

But why not place some burden of proof on those who gave you the official story?

meatbringer
04-29-2014, 07:26 PM
There are so many things that can be said to refute the myriad of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 but in relation to pre-planted charges in the WTC I simply ask........................What would be the tonnage of explosives required to execute such a demolition and then consider the miles of det cord also needed? How long would it take to plant such explosives? How would that be hidden in a building occupied nearly 24/7 and with a 24/7 security force?

You wouldn't necessarily need tonnage of explosives and miles of det cord. How does one explain the percisely cut I-beams and video documented eyewitness interviews talking about the exposion felt from beneath on the lower floors? Once again, I'm not crying "Government Conspiracy", but there is much that is still unanswered and I don't think we'll ever get the truth.

I guess you'll just call me crazy or an idiot, but I believe that the truth is being kept from us much more than I believe a few people took over all of these flights with boxcutters and wreaked such havoc.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 08:02 PM
The video footage makes it clear that it's a physical object, and not a glare.

No, that isn't clear. Again for the sake of argument (and to avoid an ad nauseam argument), let's concede it is. Where and when did the object get placed on an active United Airlines 767? It took off from Logan airport....no one noticed this and reported it later? The next logical assertion would be that the plane that took off from Logan wasn't the one the crashed into the WTC. If so, what happened to the plane that took off and what happened to the 65 persons on board? If you accept one premise you find yourself down the rabbit hole.


But why not place some burden of proof on those who gave you the official story?

That burden of proof was met. Have you read the official 9/11 report? It is 584 pages long and exhaustive in its approach, execution and conclusions.

TJMAC77SP
04-29-2014, 08:13 PM
You wouldn't necessarily need tonnage of explosives and miles of det cord. How does one explain the percisely cut I-beams and video documented eyewitness interviews talking about the exposion felt from beneath on the lower floors? Once again, I'm not crying "Government Conspiracy", but there is much that is still unanswered and I don't think we'll ever get the truth.

I guess you'll just call me crazy or an idiot, but I believe that the truth is being kept from us much more than I believe a few people took over all of these flights with boxcutters and wreaked such havoc.

Meat, I can't give you precise figures because I am not an explosives expert but I can tell you that the sheer weight of explosives and det cord would be enormous. Add to that the labor involved planting the explosives in precisely the correct spots on steel beams that would be necessary to effect the collapse of the towers. The NIST has conducted exhaustive studies on the issue. [Embedded Link Removed] is one summary from that research.

I don't think anyone is crazy or an idiot but I think people are looking for answers in places there aren't any and the obvious is, in this case, the answer.

meatbringer
04-29-2014, 08:43 PM
Meat, I can't give you precise figures because I am not an explosives expert but I can tell you that the sheer weight of explosives and det cord would be enormous. Add to that the labor involved planting the explosives in precisely the correct spots on steel beams that would be necessary to effect the collapse of the towers. The NIST has conducted exhaustive studies on the issue. ]Here[/URL] is one summary from that research.

I don't think anyone is crazy or an idiot but I think people are looking for answers in places there aren't any and the obvious is, in this case, the answer.

The computer I am on is screwed up so it won't open the link, but I will check it out after work out of sheer curiosity. Does it mention anything about the diagonal cuts in the I-beams? That is what has always bothered me. I think that with enough time, planting enough explosives strategically in a couple buildings could happen. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I feel that it is just as likely as a couple dudes with boxcutters taking over planes filled with people. I have never understood why the eye witnesses would lie about it either. What would they have to gain from it? I'm not trying to convince anyone to think differently, cuz we both know how pointless that would be.

LIke I said, I don't know what to think about it. I obviously don't have enough knowledge about what went down that day, neither does anyone else except the people involved. Unfortunately, I don't trust the government enough to be truthful about much nowadays, so a report from them is just as reliable as an internet conspiracy forum in my book. I am, however, curious as to everyone's thoughts regarding all the different conspiracy theories. Sadly, it will always turn into an argument. So do you believe 100% of the government's take on the matter? No doubts whatsoever? One of the "conspiracy films" that I found interesting was Zeitgeist. You should check it out if you ever get the chance.

Rusty Jones
04-30-2014, 02:21 PM
I think that with enough time, planting enough explosives strategically in a couple buildings could happen.

This, right here. Remember the bombings of those buildings in 1993. This means that they've been a target for AT LEAST eight years. Could it be possible that whoever wanted to destroy these buildings took ALL eight years (possibly more), to cut I-beams and plant explosives?


I'm not saying that is what happened, but I feel that it is just as likely as a couple dudes with boxcutters taking over planes filled with people. I have never understood why the eye witnesses would lie about it either. What would they have to gain from it? I'm not trying to convince anyone to think differently, cuz we both know how pointless that would be.

I have no clue how ANYONE could believe that 100 people on Boeing 767 would be afraid to take a few men with box cutters, especially after these men told them that the planes were going to crash. That 100 people accepted certain death, rather than risked getting cut.

And conspiracy theorists are the idiots? Please.

TJMAC77SP
04-30-2014, 03:02 PM
This, right here. Remember the bombings of those buildings in 1993. This means that they've been a target for AT LEAST eight years. Could it be possible that whoever wanted to destroy these buildings took ALL eight years (possibly more), to cut I-beams and plant explosives?

A reasonable question but one that ignores the security provided at the WTC. They have a sworn police force (NY/NJ Port Authority) and were led by a former Assistant Director of the FBI (a counterterrorism specialist). It also ignores the difficulty of those actions remaining completely undectected for a very long time.


I have no clue how ANYONE could believe that 100 people on Boeing 767 would be afraid to take a few men with box cutters, especially after these men told them that the planes were going to crash. That 100 people accepted certain death, rather than risked getting cut.

And conspiracy theorists are the idiots? Please.

Reports from the aircraft (passengers and crew using phones in flight) stated that the hijackers immediately killed some of the pilots and crew members. In at least one case a passenger in first class had his throat slashed. The hijackers also stated they had bombs. Witnessing that and hearing of a possible bomb (and keeping in mind that the paradigm of crashing airplanes into buildings had not yet formed) could explain the lack of action by the passengers.
Compound that with the reports that once passengers on American flight 93 learned of the crashes at the WTC and Pentagon they realized their intended fate and apparently ignored the threat of the knives and rushed the hijackers.
Given all that, it is quite believable that there was initial inaction on those flights.

Rusty Jones
04-30-2014, 03:51 PM
A reasonable question but one that ignores the security provided at the WTC. They have a sworn police force (NY/NJ Port Authority) and were led by a former Assistant Director of the FBI (a counterterrorism specialist). It also ignores the difficulty of those actions remaining completely undectected for a very long time.

If the government conspiracy stuff is true, then security - at least the high ranking officials of security - would have been in on it.

But if that wasn't the case, then how "good" is this security force? Are they all simply uniformed patrolmen who do nothing more than stand a watch? Because we've all seen how that goes on military bases lately.

We also have to consider the fact possibility that any one involved in the planting of the explosives could have been posing as maintenance crew, electricians, etc. Unless the NY/NJ Port Authority had a bomb squad detachment in the building, anyone posing as an electrician or otherwise could possibly plant a bomb right in front of their faces, and they wouldn't even know it.


Reports from the aircraft (passengers and crew using phones in flight) stated that the hijackers immediately killed some of the pilots and crew members. In at least one case a passenger in first class had his throat slashed. The hijackers also stated they had bombs. Witnessing that and hearing of a possible bomb (and keeping in mind that the paradigm of crashing airplanes into buildings had not yet formed) could explain the lack of action by the passengers.
Compound that with the reports that once passengers on American flight 93 learned of the crashes at the WTC and Pentagon they realized their intended fate and apparently ignored the threat of the knives and rushed the hijackers.
Given all that, it is quite believable that there was initial inaction on those flights.

Even given all of that information, it's still unbelievable.

There are still enough people in first class to take down one or two men with boxcutters. Especially after having watched one man get his throat slit. Wouldn't you do everything you could to make sure that you're not next?

Also... even if they stated that there were bombs on the plane, no one knew when those bombs were going to go off. But... they were still told that they were going to die.

You don't tell 100 people that they're going to die - by YOUR hands no less - expect them to remain in their seats. Even if you told them there was a bomb on the plane. That would motive them to try to get the plane on the ground and everyone off the plane before the bomb goes off.

Yes, in this scenario the pilots were killed, and it's entirely possible that not a single passenger onboard knows how to fly or land a plane.

But you know what else that means? If the passengers knew that the plane was going to crash or get blown up by a bomb anyway, then they have absolutely nothing to lose by sending some people into the cockpit to try SOMETHING.

I think there's a big underestimation at what people would do in a survival situation. Men with box cutters would be the least of their worries.

Stalwart
04-30-2014, 04:03 PM
Did passengers on the flights (other than Flight 93) get told they were all going to die? I don't remember where, but I want to say I heard they were told to remain cooperative (which up until 9/11 was the standard advice if in a hostage / hijacking scenario.)

Rusty Jones
04-30-2014, 04:11 PM
Did passengers on the flights (other than Flight 93) get told they were all going to die? I don't remember where, but I want to say I heard they were told to remain cooperative (which up until 9/11 was the standard advice if in a hostage / hijacking scenario.)

If one man got his throat slit already, then all bets should have been off as far as "remaining cooperative."

AJBIGJ
04-30-2014, 04:34 PM
Maybe I'm just insensitive or something of the like but to me "what really happened" is essentially a non-concern for me personally. It is no more of a concern for me than the assertion that FDR sighed in relief after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because it finally untied his hands to go to war with Germany. Might be true or might be a myth but the bigger concern to me is how we react when these types of events occur. I can't say I was particularly heartened by the US response to 9/11. I feel like it taught us something collectively in the process at least because at least so far we haven't mirrored our responses with the situations in Syria or the Ukraine as of yet.

Do big leaders including the President make mistakes and try to prevent them from coming under public scrutiny? I imagine that happens quite frequently. Some are worse than others. I'm particularly intrigued with the NDAA, IRS Targeting, and the NSA issues because, by themselves they may not seem particularly as volatile but in tandem we are looking at giving individuals the authority to take political opponents who threaten their power base and essentially making them disappear while smearing their reputations by using private conversations taken out of context in a misleading fashion to make the rest of us unsympathetic towards their sudden disappearance. I'm not particularly favorable towards Donald Sterling, but I have to ask myself who would rise to his defense if he received a life prison sentence solely for his comments? Honestly? I'm not speculating that this is happening by any individuals at this particular time. But I tend to wonder if there is any particular legal mechanism to prevent it, because as it stands right now the only deterrent I can see is a personal decision not to engage in these types of activities.

Stalwart
04-30-2014, 04:50 PM
Maybe / maybe not ... I may not have thought that way, you may not either, but the thinking could have been that they made their example out of that victim and you had best cooperate.

While I have not invested more than about 10 minutes of looking at the internet on some of the topics brought up here, a few things that bother me about this argument:

NEW YORK:

-The images do not definitively show a bulge, I have seen the same irregularity on shiny curved objects overhead in bright sunlight. It is odd, but I don't see anything that makes me think "definitely not a passenger plane." Read up on an effect at sea (shiny surface) called fata morgana.

-A quick Google search finds data that the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. A while ago I read the entire 9/11 Commission Report. While the structures were designed to resist the impact of planes this size, when I read the Report it got deeply into the high heat from the resulting fire. The buildings are made of concrete and steel, but the furnishings, papers, wiring, carpet etc was all combustible (along with the fuel.) This resulted in stresses on the weakened structure. The fire did not need to get hot enough to melt the steel, just to weaken the steel sufficiently at the points of impact that the weight of the floors above caused a catastrophic failure (the 2d plane hit lower on the South Tower than the first plane hit the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed first.) The fires inside are estimated to have burned at 1500 degrees Celsius -- pretty hot. Once the steel on the effected floors failed, the resulting ‘pancake stack’ effect caused subsequent failures of the lower floors.

-As far as the clean diagonal "cuts" ... I Google’d diagonal cuts on WTC steel and found a couple of pictures ... they don't look exactly smooth, but are striking ... that said I have seen similar, smooth shearing on metal on a snapped anchor chain. I am not a metallurgist, My father was a machinist with his own shop and I know based on what I have seen that hardened steel will snap smoothly – not every time … but it can happen. One photo of one beam with a 45 degree edge does not prove it was cut (to me) … especially looking that at the edges of the break in the photo I saw it looked a lot less smooth than on the more zoomed out version of the photo.

PENTAGON:

-Yes, the video of the impact is not fast enough to have captured a clear shot of the plane. There were literally hundreds of witnesses on I-395 that saw the impact, very available to find references on that.

-There was plenty of airplane debris at the site, nothing large (like the front half of the Lockerbie flight lying in a field), but again ... pieces of the plane were all over the place.

-There were remains found at the Pentagon site as well. I know people who were there and described seeing remains that looked like they belonged to passengers.

Big one for me: If there was a conspiracy willing to kill all the passengers, the people in the buildings and the associated destruction of the World Trade Center and damage at the Pentagon, why bother with a ‘controlled demolition’ that would bring the towers down in place and just let the buildings fall as they would. Why worry about ensuring they did not fall over on their side, which would have caused even more damage and more casualties and made an even bigger statement / have a bigger impact?

TJMAC77SP
04-30-2014, 05:03 PM
If one man got his throat slit already, then all bets should have been off as far as "remaining cooperative."

And you would be the one to rush the hijacker? Rush him in the narrow chokepoint of an airliner? Sacrifice yourself so the guy behind you or maybe the third guy (or gal) will reach the hijacker and disarm him? Again remember the paradigm of the times, not what happens now (which is for any perceived threat to be bum-rushed and immobilized)

I can see that you are a lot more convinced of a conspiracy then you have stated and of course that is your right but you are too willing to suspend logic in too large a swath for me to agree with you.

Measure Man
04-30-2014, 05:19 PM
I don't buy it either.

Anytime something of this magnitude happens, there are thousands upon thousands of little tidbits of information...some make sense, some don't. A select handful of them can always be twisted and turned as "evidence" of some nefarious conspiracy.

I often wondering if the people that develop these conspiracies actually believe in them...or just enjoy seeing how far they can get with it.

SomeRandomGuy
04-30-2014, 05:30 PM
I often wonder if the people that develop these conspiracies actually believe in them...or just enjoy seeing how far they can get with it.

I think it's the latter. Just logon to Facebook and start scrolling. It won't be long until you find a viral post that isn't true. Often you can fact check these posts in less than 2 minutes on Google. People don't bother to do that though. I suspect other people get jealous and want to see if they can create a viral conspiracy of their own.

Rusty Jones
04-30-2014, 05:52 PM
And you would be the one to rush the hijacker? Rush him in the narrow chokepoint of an airliner? Sacrifice yourself so the guy behind you or maybe the third guy (or gal) will reach the hijacker and disarm him? Again remember the paradigm of the times, not what happens now (which is for any perceived threat to be bum-rushed and immobilized)

I really wouldn't care WHO does it. If I'm the one that he's physically closer to, I have no problem being the one to rush him. Afterall, I'd be the one most vulnerable if I was simply sitting there and doing nothing, so why wouldn't I rush him?

Also, who says I'd be "sacrificing" myself? Would you be afraid to fight a man your size with a box cutter? If you were otherwise apprehensive about fighting a man with your hands, would you assume that having a box cutter would guarantee you the victory in a fight?

If he was carrying a longer range item, like a machete, that's one thing. However, a box cutter is no better of an advantage over another man than the ability to punch harder than he can.

But then, even if he was carrying a machete... so what? It's a greater risk, but the choice is between risk and certain death. Which would you choose?


I can see that you are a lot more convinced of a conspiracy then you have stated and of course that is your right but you are too willing to suspend logic in too large a swath for me to agree with you.

I told you this before, and I'll tell you again - what I'm convinced of is that the official story is not completely true, if at all. That's it. If I was able to tell you the specifics of what I believe happened, THEN you could say that I'm convinced of any kind of "conspiracy."

SomeRandomGuy
04-30-2014, 06:14 PM
I told you this before, and I'll tell you again - what I'm convinced of is that the official story is not completely true, if at all. That's it. If I was able to tell you the specifics of what I believe happened, THEN you could say that I'm convinced of any kind of "conspiracy."

Sounds like the jury in the George Zimmerman case. They weren't completely convinced all the facts were avaliable. Lots of things could have happened. So I guess they made the right decision by saying that reasonable doubt existed and they couldn't do anything.

TJMAC77SP
04-30-2014, 06:28 PM
I really wouldn't care WHO does it. If I'm the one that he's physically closer to, I have no problem being the one to rush him. Afterall, I'd be the one most vulnerable if I was simply sitting there and doing nothing, so why wouldn't I rush him?

Also, who says I'd be "sacrificing" myself? Would you be afraid to fight a man your size with a box cutter? If you were otherwise apprehensive about fighting a man with your hands, would you assume that having a box cutter would guarantee you the victory in a fight?

If he was carrying a longer range item, like a machete, that's one thing. However, a box cutter is no better of an advantage over another man than the ability to punch harder than he can.

But then, even if he was carrying a machete... so what? It's a greater risk, but the choice is between risk and certain death. Which would you choose?



I told you this before, and I'll tell you again - what I'm convinced of is that the official story is not completely true, if at all. That's it. If I was able to tell you the specifics of what I believe happened, THEN you could say that I'm convinced of any kind of "conspiracy."


Ok, and ok

meatbringer
04-30-2014, 07:20 PM
So, anyone want to take a crack at Building 7?:outtahere:

Measure Man
04-30-2014, 11:34 PM
Sounds like the jury in the George Zimmerman case. They weren't completely convinced all the facts were avaliable. Lots of things could have happened. So I guess they made the right decision by saying that reasonable doubt existed and they couldn't do anything.

You could say that...the defense is actually at a huge advantage in the court of law. The prosecutor has to prove his case and the defense merely needs to raise doubt about it.

I think the GZ jury finding was reasonable given the charges. I do think GZ was guilty of something less...reckless use of a firearm, something, but probably not murder. I still think he deserved some jail time, but the prosecutor reached for the the stars instead of the trees.

I don't know whether the official 9/11 story would pass the muster in a court of law...but if not, that doesn't mean the govt. planned and covered it up.

...just because the GZ jury could not convict of murder, does not mean they didn't believe he did it, or that they believe he was innocent...it only means the prosecutor did not prove he did it.

ChiefAD
05-02-2014, 05:52 PM
So, anyone want to take a crack at Building 7?:outtahere:

I read the posts and many still believe a plane hit the Pentagon and another plane crashed in Shanksville, PA. My eyes tell me different and that is all I have to say about that.

I worked at the WTC for many years in the 90s. No reason for that building to collapse.

Rusty Jones
05-02-2014, 07:23 PM
TJ and Stalwart brought up eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon. However, there are also eyewitnesses who say that it was a missile.

That brings us back to the fact that there are no photos or videos of aircraft parts anywhere. And, the big elephant in the room - the fact that the hole in the building was too small to have been created by a Boeing 757 going through it.

Monkey
05-02-2014, 08:55 PM
TJ and Stalwart brought up eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon. However, there are also eyewitnesses who say that it was a missile.

That brings us back to the fact that there are no photos or videos of aircraft parts anywhere. And, the big elephant in the room - the fact that the hole in the building was too small to have been created by a Boeing 757 going through it.

3793

The hole was 75 feet wide, how big do you think it should have been?

Monkey
05-02-2014, 09:21 PM
I read the posts and many still believe a plane hit the Pentagon and another plane crashed in Shanksville, PA. My eyes tell me different and that is all I have to say about that.

I worked at the WTC for many years in the 90s. No reason for that building to collapse.

Shanksville, PA crash site photos...

3797

That resembles the outline of an airliner to me.

3798

Those pieces of torn up sheet metal resemble the same type I see on aircraft

3794

That's exactly what a jet engine looks like after impacting the ground when it is still running (learned that one in the Jet Engine Mishap Investigation Course<<--best AF class ever)

3795

That looks pretty familiar to the flights I've taken on airliners.

3796

That's as much time as I am wasting on this.

efmbman
05-02-2014, 11:00 PM
I have no doubt that a plane crashed in PA... my issue is under what circumstances did it end flight? I believe that one day we will learn that it was shot down.

Measure Man
05-02-2014, 11:33 PM
I read the posts and many still believe a plane hit the Pentagon and another plane crashed in Shanksville, PA. My eyes tell me different and that is all I have to say about that..

I have a close friend that was there that day...that's all I needed.

Monkey
05-03-2014, 01:17 AM
Ok, I'm going to waste a little more time on this. Why do conspiracy theorists tend to believe that the world is like a Robert Ludlum novel. Why would anyone ever believe that the government is pure evil and is capable of pulling off huge, complicated operations successfully without tipping their hand except to one or two people who figure it out? That's called a "Thriller" and it is fiction. How is it we've have people who have been leaking Top Secret information in order to expose the evils of our government, but they somehow didn't leak anything about this?

If you guys want a conspiracy, how about one that is far more plausible? A very select group in the intelligence agency cut a deal with Osama Bin Laden to recruit some extremists to crash some airplanes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House? This theory would be far simpler, cheaper, require very few people to "be in on it", and be very deniable if things went wrong.

SomeRandomGuy
05-03-2014, 03:23 AM
Ok, I'm going to waste a little more time on this. Why do conspiracy theorists tend to believe that the world is like a Robert Ludlum novel. Why would anyone ever believe that the government is pure evil and is capable of pulling off huge, complicated operations successfully without tipping their hand except to one or two people who figure it out? That's called a "Thriller" and it is fiction. How is it we've have people who have been leaking Top Secret information in order to expose the evils of our government, but they somehow didn't leak anything about this?

If you guys want a conspiracy, how about one that is far more plausible? A very select group in the intelligence agency cut a deal with Osama Bin Laden to recruit some extremists to crash some airplanes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House? This theory would be far simpler, cheaper, require very few people to "be in on it", and be very deniable if things went wrong.

I have always wondered the same. If you are ever in Dallas, TX it is worth your time to stop by the area where JFK was assassinated. You will find all kinds of conspiracy theorists. It is really cool talking to them and having them point out where and how things could have happened. Of course they are just trying to make a buck but still fun to talk to. The cover up to the JFK assassination is about all of the proof you need that the government isn't capable of keeping a conspiracy secret or even planning one. In fact, because of how they tried to cover up the JFK shooting it actually made it look like a conspiracy.

ChiefAD
05-03-2014, 12:38 PM
3793

The hole was 75 feet wide, how big do you think it should have been?

You should show that whole page from where that photo exists.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html <-- I am sorry. A plane that size smashing against a building will leave much more damage than shown. Why those videos from the gas stations by it were taken by the FBI and not shown? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-18316984

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/impact.jpg

Also, with Shawshank my mother could tell me different; and I still have the capacity to see things differently and make up my own decision. Yes, no bodies found but yet a passport. That is the problem with this country; people easily buy whatever the government tells them. Yea, we have to buy into the theory that plane hijackers with Cessna plane training were able to fly a plane that low into the Pentagon and crash it nose down to make a whole plane evaporate. Yea, cell phones working at that altitude. Give me a break.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/25/turk.plane.crash.1.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/asiana-san-francisco-plane-crash-passengers-begged-for-help/story-e6frg6so-1226678441999

Let's us agree to disagree. No need to trump the believers of senseless "conspiracy theories"

ChiefAD
05-03-2014, 12:42 PM
Shanksville, PA crash site photos...

3797

That resembles the outline of an airliner to me.

3798

Those pieces of torn up sheet metal resemble the same type I see on aircraft

3794

That's exactly what a jet engine looks like after impacting the ground when it is still running (learned that one in the Jet Engine Mishap Investigation Course<<--best AF class ever)

3795

That looks pretty familiar to the flights I've taken on airliners.

3796

That's as much time as I am wasting on this.

Thank you. That must be from United 93 since the government says so. You are an excellent researcher.

TJMAC77SP
05-03-2014, 06:22 PM
TJ and Stalwart brought up eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon. However, there are also eyewitnesses who say that it was a missile.

That brings us back to the fact that there are no photos or videos of aircraft parts anywhere. And, the big elephant in the room - the fact that the hole in the building was too small to have been created by a Boeing 757 going through it.

Actually the elephant in the room (with regard to American Flight 77) is the [embedded link removed]much earlier in this thread. Which remains unanswered.

efmbman
05-03-2014, 08:32 PM
Actually the elephant in the room (with regard to American Flight 77) is the [embedded link removed]much earlier in this thread. Which remains unanswered.

Since the link was removed, can you make your point in another way? Just curious... Thanks.

TJMAC77SP
05-03-2014, 10:24 PM
Since the link was removed, can you make your point in another way? Just curious... Thanks.

Sorry, weird since the link was to an MTF post. I guess an embedded link is an embedded link........


Ok, simply for the sake of argument let's concede that no plane actually hitting the Pentagon was witnessed (although that isn't really true. What is true is that the parking lot camera with a slow frame rate didn't capture the plane impacting. There were several people who witnessed the approach and impact. I-395 runs right next to the building.) We KNOW that American Flight 77 took off from Dulles with 64 people on board. We KNOW that the plane is gone as are all the passengers and crew (including the hijackers). We KNOW that the black boxes from that plane were recovered in the Pentagon impact debris.

Grease Monkey
06-26-2014, 09:16 AM
Loose Change and all of these 9/11 conspiracies are pointless and only meant to be believed by retards. We all know the truth. 9/11 was an inside job by George W. Bush so he could invade Iraq. Bush impregnated Jill Metzger, who he had sent back in time under the ruse of her being “kidnapped”. Once in the past, Jill gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and left him with a family to raise him and the instructions on how to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Jill then returned to the future where she rescued herself from her “kidnappers” and was quickly whisked away by loyal Bush soldiers and has been kept out of the public eye ever since. Meanwhile, Osama eventually carried out his father’s instructions and conducted the attacks, eventually leading to the Iraq invasion and a Bush reelection. Bush served out his two terms, Jill got a cush job, and Osama faked his death by switching places with a POW deserter and is now living safely in the US under the name Bowe Bergdahl.

AF-1Sgt
06-27-2014, 02:28 PM
Since people are talking about the lack of aircraft pieces at the WTC and Pentagon as proof it was a missile, let me ask, has anyone seen the footage when the launched an F-4 into a concrete wall to test teh walls structural integrity? What was left? Anything close to resembling an aircraft? That is the closest we have seen to being similar to an aircraft going at or close to max speed into a building because no one ever used a plane as a missile before 9/11.
There is also a lot of talk about why nobody rushed the terrorists after they took over the plane. Before that day, a terrorist was going to take hostages and ransom them. Yes, they may have killed one or two people to show the others they are serious, they may also talk about bombs and killing themselves, but that was not the plan in the past. I read a good bit of the 9/11 commission report, but never hear or saw any confirmed reports that the terrorists stated they were going to kill themselves anyway, so again why would anyone expect this to happen.
My last and best point about why this became a conspiracy in the first place is very simple. We in the United States cannot comprehend how we the mightiest, most advanced nation in the world could be shaken to our core by such a simple plan. Our arrogance in our superiority does not allow us to believe such a small number of people from a third world nation could hurt us so badly. Were there a lot of warning signs, yes. Did we catch them all, no. Let me use this as an example since it also affects all veterans. Look at the number of suicides by active duty and veterans every single day. How many of those poor people gave tons of warning signs, yet were not noticed or actions were not taken by their family, co-workers and friends. We can't save the life of someone hurting right next to us, but we as a country expect the intelligence community to spot, survail, and catch every terrorist before they act? Not possible.

Zxc
07-11-2014, 03:52 PM
I think if anything this thread shows just how many active/former military have become distrustful, and I've heard many conversations that mimmicked the same... a small few on either side of the extreme, and most falling somewhere in the middle thinking that there was a lot more than we know.

I think the problem with many of the conspiracy theroies is that they try too hard to prove or disprove specific things that they can't and ultimately discredit themselves.

Hmm... So who remembers the events that led to us entering WW1 or Vietnam?

efmbman
07-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Hmm... So who remembers the events that led to us entering WW1 or Vietnam?

It has been proven that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a falsehood. Even at the time it happened, Johnson was quoted as saying that the sailors were probably shooting at flying fish. He knew at the time it was BS, but still escalated the war.

Yes, there is a growing climate of distrust. I think that will play a huge role over the next 10-20 years as our country slides more toward collapse.

INGUARD
04-28-2015, 11:34 PM
Forum,

Did anyone know about the 9/11 hearings that were held in Toronto a decade later? It is available on hulu but found the video on here. People who are accused on being labeled as conspiracy theorists have good counter arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpiVv8tQdmY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE-cxhEDyh8

CYBERFX1024
04-29-2015, 02:01 PM
Operation Northwoods is the big elephant in the room. Again, anyone who thinks that 9/11 couldn't have been an "inside job" needs to take a look at that.

I'm not going to make assertions on what 9/11 is or isn't, but I will say that I believe that there's a lot to 9/11 that Americans aren't being told... whether there's more to the story, or if Americans have been completely lied to. The truth is out there, and I don't believe Americans have all of it... if we even have any of it.

What also is not being said is that the day before on Sept. 10th the Pentagon came out and said that they are missing 2.3 Trillion yes a Trillion dollars. Then the very next day we suddenly forget about because of 9/11.