|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:29 am
Okay, this was an ED topic, but I'm taking a slightly new spin on it. First I want you to view this flash animation.Then, take a moment to wonder about it. After that, go read this entire article.Now go replay the flash animation. Make note of differences between the animation and the webpage. Make note of several inconsistancies. Now, this probably makes you wonder what you want to believe. Personally, I think the flash animation, while very awesome, only focuses on the engine from the plane that went through some places in the pentagon "Like a missile". The thing I'm getting at though, is there any inconsistancies with both the pages? Well, there's several. The website says things about reconstruction and such that I believe, while the flash animation has several typos and wrong facts. For example, the renovation of the Pentagon section that the flash animation was talking about, they said, was under rennovation since 1999, when in actuality it has been under construction since 1993. The Flash animation has other things wrong with it, but for the most part, there is one thing that the website doesn't address that the flash animation does: Confiscation of all video recordings that were filming during the impact. All of them. The webpage states that the plane hit the ground before it hit the Pentagon. So does the flash animation. However, the Pentagon lawn is clearly not torn up at all. The webpage, as does the flash animation, say that the flight was going around 530mph two feet from the ground. The webpage says nothing of Jet turbulance, such as cars flying off highways. The air pressure would so high, it would do that. The webpage makes no comment. I want to see the tapes of the highway, the crash. What do you think really happened? Is there a way to explain this inconsistancies, you think? And why do you think the FBI confiscated all the videos?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:17 pm
I actually believed the whole conspiracy for all of five seconds. True, the confiscation of evidence and the strange circumstances concerning the wreckage of the plane are questionable. Since it was a highly traumatic event for many, eyewitness accounts and even those watching footage of it, become emotionally involved. Some accounts and descriptions could be influenced by this.
The failure of the website to explain every piece of evidence is not evidence of their incompetence, but more their inability to explain it either or they simply forgot to address it as humans are apt to do.
Though I do question the official accounts more, I do not believe that there is a cover-up. As usual, facts and evidence is being withheld or at least forgotten by the public eye. The real question is when are we ever given the full details of the results of investigations? The only answer is that there are human emotions and thought processes involved, and we will never be fully logical or comprehensive in our work; all we can do is try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:36 pm
No plane, huh? The lawn was damaged, but the damage was too minor to be noticed from far away, considering that the plane essentially skipped off the ground. This is not uncommon in airplane landings, and it is caused by the same lift effect that keeps an airplane off the ground at such high speeds. The website above shows what happened on the freeways. As for the confiscation, this is a common practice of every government in the world while responding to a national security risk. The US government, once discovering that civilians had filmed the crash, would have the legal authority to confiscate--though in the legal world, we call this a subpoena--the evidence necessary to learn the facts of the even that just occurred. Subpoenas tend to piss people off, but they are hardly uncommon. Attorneys can obtain this authority from the judge if they provide convicing, ready-present evidence that the witness or evidence they want will further the case in a compelling manner. Additionally, most people don't experience a commercial plane flying at full-speed near earshot. If they did, the Doppler effect, combined with the intense noise of the jet engines, would create a whoosh sound that would be indistinguishable from that of a missile or a fighter jet. And there's your conspiracy, officially debunked, by the JoVo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:52 pm
But why won't they release the tapes, then? It's been three years. They could've made copies, or studied them enough as it is.
I've never heard of a subpoena lasting that long.
And JoVo, I never said there wasn't a plane. My post actually supported that there was one. Read more closely, next time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:07 pm
[Q] But why won't they release the tapes, then? It's been three years. They could've made copies, or studied them enough as it is. I've never heard of a subpoena lasting that long. The NSA does not release documents pertaining to national security until 60 years after the fact. I believe that's pretty near to their current policy. [Q] And JoVo, I never said there wasn't a plane. My post actually supported that there was one. Read more closely, next time? I never said you believed there wasn't a plane. Don't read so much into it next time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:27 am
If you keep up with that smart attitude, I'll lock you in the box again. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:27 pm
[Q] If you keep up with that smart attitude, I'll lock you in the box again. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:06 pm
JoVo [Q] If you keep up with that smart attitude, I'll lock you in the box again. wink Dare I ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:11 pm
Keithing JoVo [Q] If you keep up with that smart attitude, I'll lock you in the box again. wink Dare I ask? Probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:04 am
Keithing, look in the last pages of the "Question" thread. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:28 pm
JoVo I never said you believed there wasn't a plane. Don't read so much into it next time? You did refer to it as "your conspiracy", which, since it's unlikely that you meant [Q] was behind it, makes it sound like [Q] is invested in the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:15 am
You guys don't have to put the brackets around Q. Just call me Q... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:21 pm
HORRAY! i was looking for that flash! It was on some site b4, but they got too many angery letters, so they took it off....
I wouldnt be surprized if that son of a b***h bush himself arranged it. I hope he rots in hell.
....im sorry to any pro-busher's in here.....i just still dont forgive that man for all his lies and trying to prevent gay marrige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:05 pm
Well, it's hard to believe that Bush would target his own people for an attack like that. I mean, he's an a**, but he's not evil.
And after reading both sites (For and against the conspiracy), I can only come to one conclusion. The frenchman who started the conspiracy of the Pentagon attack is nuts. With a concrete wall, reinforced by steel, and nearly completed in renovation, would have definitely sqooshed the airplane, as they've reported over and over again, to the point where it would've been nothing but a large metal tube sailing through the Pentagon's inner rings. And since they never found debris in the WTC from the two planes that crashed into the towers, not to mention that I've studied Chemistry and learned that metals *do* have melting points, I'm prone to believe that, there would never be any large pieces of debris from the plane. The metal would've all melted, and evaporated. Just like the steel melted, allowing for the two towers and the section of the Pentagon to collapse.
Anyone that believes that crackpot idea that there was no airplane that crashed into the Pentagon, is crazy. Not to mention disrespectful of all the innocent lives that were lost on the plane and in the Pentagon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:39 am
Matiko-san Well, it's hard to believe that Bush would target his own people for an attack like that. I mean, he's an a**, but he's not evil. And after reading both sites (For and against the conspiracy), I can only come to one conclusion. The frenchman who started the conspiracy of the Pentagon attack is nuts. With a concrete wall, reinforced by steel, and nearly completed in renovation, would have definitely sqooshed the airplane, as they've reported over and over again, to the point where it would've been nothing but a large metal tube sailing through the Pentagon's inner rings. And since they never found debris in the WTC from the two planes that crashed into the towers, not to mention that I've studied Chemistry and learned that metals *do* have melting points, I'm prone to believe that, there would never be any large pieces of debris from the plane. The metal would've all melted, and evaporated. Just like the steel melted, allowing for the two towers and the section of the Pentagon to collapse. Anyone that believes that crackpot idea that there was no airplane that crashed into the Pentagon, is crazy. Not to mention disrespectful of all the innocent lives that were lost on the plane and in the Pentagon. Well, of course metals have melting points. How would they be shaped if they didn't? Slightly more interesting is that they have boiling( vaporization) points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Q]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/15/1f06246f41523_flip.png?t=1465986572_6.00_11)
Reply
