Stupid 9/11 Conspiracy Theories


mabudon
#31
That there video doesn't really show anything, not going to weigh in too heavy here but if anything, I am SHOCKED that surveillance THAT crappy is all they have to go with, I am still pretty much totally unconvinced that there is NO "cover up" at the very least (and anyone who wants to disagree with me on THAT point, feel free but I will also be surprised if ANYONE with a functioning brain can assert that because of that CRAPPY footage "all facts are on the table and there is NO room for further questions")

In my mind all of the "qualifiers" offered for the pretty much useless "footage" make it even more apparent that there aer a few "known knowns" that are not forthcoming for who knows what reason
 
aeon
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

How in the hell can you compare a plane crash vs a plane that hits the Pentagon? Talk about desperate, what you think all planes crash the same way?

Heads up, look again I changed my post, maybe before in you're rush to be proven wrong you should read it through first..


Seriously what is your problem jhonny?? i proved to you that Popular mechanics arent credible, with the ASCE report which they use to support their claim, which is a lie, cause ASCE report doesnt support what they say about the pentagone hole, READ THE REPORT, I POSTED THE LINK, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE ON THIS ONE.

Now you show me a picture that supposed to support Popular mechanics claim, but since i have logic, i saw in less than a minute, that It is again a lie, how come a plane that supposed to have been vaporized at the impact, has a part that has no single scortch mark on it??




Answer this time if you are a man with balls, dont try to bring another fact, that i will again debunked in a very easy way.
 
aeon
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Mogz

Kind of drawing a few absolutes there aren't you aeon? Are you saying that a plane crash has to show scorch marks? You do realize that due to physics, pieces will be blow outwards by the impact of a crash, therefore now allowing them time to burn. Look at this piece of plane wreckage:



Not all chared is it. Then it musn't have crashed according to you and your absolutes. Plane crashes MUST show char marks right?


A plane that crashed at 400 mph, and is supposed to have been vaporized at the impact, will not appeared like the plane you are showing, quite different situation , don t you think?
 
aeon
#34
ALso i have a question for those who believe the us officials story, and believe Popular mechanics


How come popular mechanics had to lie on ASCE report to prove their claim?

Now guys answer this question instead of bringing other speculations.
 
Johnny Utah
#35

First video of Pentagon 9/11 attack released
Watchdog group says video will end 'conspiracy theories'
CNN.com
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Video showing a plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was released publicly for the first time Tuesday, a judicial watchdog group said.

The Justice Department has handed over tapes showing American Airlines Flight 77 striking the building outside Washington to Judicial Watch, a public interest group that requested the video, the group said.

The video is available on the group's Web site, according to a news release from Judicial Watch.

At least two tapes were released, from different security cameras. The two cameras, from the same Pentagon checkpoint, show the building from different angles. (Watch as the plane slams into the Pentagon -- 3:03)

Previously released still photographs from those cameras show the Pentagon on fire, but no images of the Boeing 757 striking the building have ever been made public.

The video released Tuesday was the source of those still photos.

In one clip, a police car passes in front of the security camera before a ball of flame and smoke erupts from the Pentagon in the background.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

The Pentagon attack killed 184 people: Fifty-three passengers and six crew members on board American Airlines Flight 77, and 125 military and civilian personnel inside the building.

www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html (external - login to view)

_____________________________
This ends all Conspiracy Theories on the Pentagon, those who still want to debunk, debunk are beating a Dead Horse as their Proved wrong! Case Closed..


Forest of Columns kept Pentagon Standing
Report: Structural system saved lives September 11, 2001
CNN.com
Friday, January 24, 2003
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A forest of steel-reinforced concrete pillars in the Pentagon saved many lives and prevented more serious damage to the building during the attack September 11, 2001, structural engineers said in a report released Friday.

When the hijacked jumbo jet plowed into the Pentagon near ground level, it penetrated 310 feet through the building's outer three rings in less than a second, according to the report by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

That sent debris through the west side of the building like an avalanche, according to the engineers.

The attack killed 189 people -- 64 aboard the aircraft and 125 inside the Pentagon.

"While this loss of life exceeded that of the Oklahoma City bombing, it is very remarkable that it was not worse," said Paul Mlakar, a team leader for the study. The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killed 168 people April 19, 1995.

The study gives most of the credit to the engineers who went beyond required standards 60 years ago, when they designed and built the structure as a document warehouse. The Pentagon has served as the nation's military headquarters since the end of World War II.

The Pentagon was built of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and the floors consisted of a slab, beam and girder system supported on spiral-steel-reinforced columns.

www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/24/attacks.pentagon/ (external - login to view)

______________________________________

Facts are the material of the plane, the speed, the amount of Jet Fuel. The Inner structure of the Pentagon, concrete pillars etc it's all Physics, again case closed..
 
Johnny Utah
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

ALso i have a question for those who believe the us officials story, and believe Popular mechanics


How come popular mechanics had to lie on ASCE report to prove their claim?

Now guys answer this question instead of bringing other speculations.

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html (external - login to view)


I posted this before proving you wrong, I doubt you will not even read the information on this as you never did on the 9 pages in Popular Mechanics site because they prove you wrong. Not all planes crash the same way or are chared the same way after crashing. You don't think when the plane hit the Pentagon pieces of it couldn't have been blown behind it like the pic I posted before?

Do The Math!
 
aeon
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Johnny Utah

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

ALso i have a question for those who believe the us officials story, and believe Popular mechanics


How come popular mechanics had to lie on ASCE report to prove their claim?

Now guys answer this question instead of bringing other speculations.

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html (external - login to view)


I posted this before proving you wrong, I doubt you will not even read the information on this as you never did on the 9 pages in Popular Mechanics site because they prove you wrong. Not all planes crash the same way or are chared the same way after crashing. You don't think when the plane hit the Pentagon pieces of it couldn't have been blown behind it like the pic I posted before?

Do The Math!


I read many times, popular mechanics, it only covers 16 facts, and all of them were easily debunked, you brought 3 of their facts, which i proved you were wrong.

The link of a forum you just posted, you should have read it till the end, cause everyone agree that the plane that crashed into the pentagone was a smaller plane, just for for your own information, there is about 175 pages to read.


Now i ask you the same exact question and i know you will not answer, HOW COME POPULAR MECHANICS HAD TO LIE ON ASCE REPORT??
 
I think not
#38
Who debunked Popular Mechanics? What are the credentials of those debunking Popular Mechanics? What is their field of study? Do they have a reputation? Have they done similar investigative work? How many cases like 9/11 or similar have they attempted to analyze? Any answers?
 
aeon
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Who debunked Popular Mechanics? What are the credentials of those debunking Popular Mechanics? What is their field of study? Do they have a reputation? Have they done similar investigative work? How many cases like 9/11 or similar have they attempted to analyze? Any answers?


First , dont need to be an expert to debunk popular mechanics, just have to use your common sense

Quote: Originally Posted by popular mechanics

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.



The report by ASCE doesnt even say that the hole in the C-Ring was made by the jet's landing gear, in the report there is no mention on what happened to the plane's engine inside the pentagone.

Read the report by yourself.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf


so now i ask, why popular mechanics has to lie on ASCE report to support their claim??
 
Jay
#40
Quote:

Oh Look Bush must have placed that piece of the plane there himself, or was it Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?

Ok, alright....I put it there.
 
I think not
#41
Read page 40 of the ASCE report.

Quote:

The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building.

 
Mogz
#42
I never said the plane picture I posted as in the same situation as the one you're describing aeon. I am however pointing out that just because a plane crashes and large chunks of it are incinerated, that doesn't mean pieces can't escape the fire.
 
aeon
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote:

Oh Look Bush must have placed that piece of the plane there himself, or was it Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?

Ok, alright....I put it there.


I knew it you were part of the conspiracy.
 
darkbeaver
#44
The film released today had a nice explosion and some nice smoke and fire but I didn't see an airplane. It looked like a cruise missile to me.
 
aeon
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Read page 40 of the ASCE report.

Quote:

The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building.

Congrats man! But it still doesnt explain on how the hole in the c-ring was made.So how PM concluded this?
 
aeon
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

The film released today had a nice explosion and some nice smoke and fire but I didn't see an airplane. It looked like a cruise missile to me.


LOL, that doesnt surprise me at all. Do you have a link of this?
 
Just the Facts
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

how come a plane that supposed to have been vaporized at the impact, has a part that has no single scortch mark on it??

A. Because the plane hit many light standards on it's way in, leaving debris before it even hit the building.

B. Because pieces of the plane were propelled by the force of impact landing away from the fireball.

Sorry Aeon, you got nothin. You're suffering from what I call the Paul McCartney conspiracy syndrome. Nevermind the fact that he's walking on his own steam across Abbey Road...he's barefoot...he must be dead. Lots of dead people walk around the streets...especially in summer.
 
Johnny Utah
#48

Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane
CNN.com
September 12, 2001
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON -- Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.

A short time later the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.

Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.

Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.

She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.

Ted Olson notified the Justice Department command center immediately.

archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/ (external - login to view)


So where is Barbara Olson? If no plane hit then where is she? Facts are a plane hit the Pentagon, Barbara Olson's phonecall confirms it, period..
 
aeon
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

how come a plane that supposed to have been vaporized at the impact, has a part that has no single scortch mark on it??

A. Because the plane hit many light standards on it's way in, leaving debris before it even hit the building.

B. Because pieces of the plane were propelled by the force of impact landing away from the fireball.

Sorry Aeon, you got nothin. You're suffering from what I call the Paul McCartney conspiracy syndrome. Nevermind the fact that he's walking on his own steam across Abbey Road...he's barefoot...he must be dead. Lots of dead people walk around the streets...especially in summer.

A. Light standard would have damaged a 757 running at 400 mph?? this piece(picture) wasnt taken from the wings by the way.

B. even if this is true, we would have seen some black smoke on the debris.

 
I think not
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Congrats man! But it still doesnt explain on how the hole in the c-ring was made.So how PM concluded this?

Page 28

Quote:

The aircraft had entered the building at an angle, traveling in a northeasterly direction.With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story:The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the firstfloor slab on grade and the second floor. The path of damage extended from the west exterior wall of the building in a northeasterly direction completely through Ring E, Ring D, Ring C, and their connecting lower floors.There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16).The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building.The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately 225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.

 
aeon
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by aeonCongrats man! But it still doesnt explain on how the hole in the c-ring was made.So how PM concluded this?Page 28
Quote: The aircraft had entered the building at an angle, traveling in a northeasterly direction.With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story:The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the firstfloor slab on grade and the second floor. The path of damage extended from the west exterior wall of the building in a northeasterly direction completely through Ring E, Ring D, Ring C, and their connecting lower floors.There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16).The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building.The path of the aircraft debris passed approximately 225 ft diagonally through Wedge 1 and approximately 85 ft diagonally through a portion of Ring C in Wedge 2.

Quote has been trimmed


You are the best ITN, thankx, and since i have honnor, i admit i was wrong on that one.
 
I think not
#52
Your English is also alot better than my French, this is why I tolerate you. :P
 
Just the Facts
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

A. Light standard would have damaged a 757 running at 400 mph?? this piece(picture) wasnt taken from the wings by the way.

B. even if this is true, we would have seen some black smoke on the debris.

A. Well yeah.

B. Why? Seems to me like a clear maybe, maybe not. Or perhaps a it ain't necessarily so.

I just saw the video on the news, and you can clearly see debris being blown back away from the building, just like I envisioned. A piece of metal being blown free of the plane by the force of the explosion could easily have escaped being cinged.
 
Cosmo
#54
Good Morning Mabudon ... Here's your thread back.
 
mabudon
#55
Thanks, Carry On!!! (funny thing, when it was missing I thought "man, they really DO wanna bury this whole notion" and went to look in the bushes outside my house JUST IN CASE )
 
Cosmo
#56
rofl ... oh no! Don't start with that!! I hate wearing my tinfoil hat so early in the morning!

Actually I haven't even read this thread because I am a conspiracy theorist. I decided I needed to up my meds before I read this. heehee
 
aeon
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

A. Light standard would have damaged a 757 running at 400 mph?? this piece(picture) wasnt taken from the wings by the way.

B. even if this is true, we would have seen some black smoke on the debris.

A. Well yeah.

B. Why? Seems to me like a clear maybe, maybe not. Or perhaps a it ain't necessarily so.

I just saw the video on the news, and you can clearly see debris being blown back away from the building, just like I envisioned. A piece of metal being blown free of the plane by the force of the explosion could easily have escaped being cinged.


I think you are right. it makes sense.
 

Similar Threads

12
Old Conspiracy theories.....
by DaSleeper | Apr 18th, 2010
72
Top 10 Wackiest Conspiracy Theories
by DurkaDurka | Aug 31st, 2007
no new posts