Anyone else seen this?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Just wondering how may other people here are open minded to this.
This gets my whole hearted vote, sorry no apologies.
Printable View
Anyone else seen this?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Just wondering how may other people here are open minded to this.
This gets my whole hearted vote, sorry no apologies.
Not only have I seen it, but the 757 that you see a few seconds into the clip is a stolen photo of mine. They took it and moved it to make it look like it was moving.
I've read many Anet threads on this theory. I'll dig them up and show you how it was all disproved.
A lot of this is just flat out lies. Photos that they used as "evidence" are just fake photos. Just because they say no plane parts were found.....why would one take the conspiritists word for it? They DID find plane parts.
That is a bunch of bull****, You can clearly see in MANY photos, the 757 fandisk without blades. Lets also talk about the hundreds of people that were on the road and the Lightpole that was KNOCKED DOWN as the aircraft missed there cars by mere Feet!
I AM TIRED OF THE BLULSIHT!!!! DUH!
Just Because there is NO VIDEO, Does NOT mean it did not happen.
Mike - you're missing about an hour of that video. Please watch the one below when you have an hour or so to spare....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ose+change
Phil - you can probably just work off this video above for nearly all the conspiracy allegations.
It's actually a good summation of many of the conspiracies... many, as indicated have been explained, or they're just events that have been presented inaccurately, but theres some general stuff in there I think most anyone could find interesting.
Tom
Only a couple of minutes into this, I need to get you a hell of a big beer TOM!!!! Thank you for this great find!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
Thank GOD that there was VIDEO of the aircraft crashing into the towers because they would have said I was nuts when I would have claimed to see an aircraft with the silhouette of a 737 hit the tower with my own eyes!
A good conspiracy can not be proven, but when someone has evidence, it is no longer good enough....even when provided by an expert....it is then that the expert was brainwashed. People talk.... Stories change, that is why you need to go on evidence and not what people saw.
I wish I could go into more details, It was a PW engine and that disc WAS a from a PW engine. Nobody can give me a more credible expert in the field than my source..... Next time you see me, ask me more...but I will NOT go into it on a PUBLIC forum.
That video is wild....and if they wanted to bring down the WTC, and had gotten explosive into the building to bring it down, why the use of aircraft? it makes No sense..... At least the pentagon bull had a chance in lots of people believing.
sorry, but the footage was great
Can we get back to the TWA 747 Missile theory so I can tell you about what I found inside the center tank when looking over the wreckage???
Mel directed me to the Loose Change video last week and I sat through the whole thing with an open mind. Most of the questions raised can be answered pretty quickly, a few of them cannot. Whatever credibility the maker had went down the toilet at the end, when explaining their theory of why the attacks occurred. I was bracing for the old "Bush did it because he wanted to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and an excuse to bomb Saddam." But I was floored when the narrator suggested the whole thing was a plot to steal $160 BILLION IN GOLD (that no one knew about) from vaults in the World Trade Center...and that the plot failed when they detonated the explosives before the trucks got out. Everyone get your tin foil hats on!
Here is somebody that explained some of the items in that Loose Change Fairy Tale:
Quote:
At the start of the video they mention a flash at the Beginning of the first Tower hit. Are they trying to say that the government knew which side and which story the plane was going to hit and detonated a device at a millisecond point before the actual impact? They don’t say.
A few seconds later they mention the pod under the Boeing aircraft. So how did the pod get there? Was it on the plane before it took off? Did the hijackers land the plane and attach this so called pod or was it an entirely different airplane that the government decided to use, but were too stupid to put the explosives inside the plane instead of in a supposed pod where all of New York could see? If the later is the case they are trying to make, again they don’t say, then we would have to assume that all the passengers on that plane are in hiding at this very moment. That, or they were taken off the plane, killed, and then placed inside the buildings later to be DNA identified.
They say that Boeing decided not to comment on the pod because it was due to national security, again, they refuse to show or cite or source proving this statement.
At around the 2:41 mark they rewind and fast forward the plane impacting the building. Showing what seems to be a small explosion right as the airplane hit the building. They claim that it is a missile being shot seconds before impact. Where was the missile on the plane when we were being shown the invisible pod? Clearly you would have been able to see a missile if they can point out a pod under the fuselage. This then asks the question, why would they need to shoot the missile seconds before impact?
At around 3:50 they decide to make an attack on the American Media and they also attack the philosophy that it is not ok to question the conspiracy theorist because we would then be accusing them as being anti-American. Are you noticing a plan of attack by these conspiracy theorists?
Around the 4:50 mark they picked an eyewitness testimony that backs their case that it was something other than a Boeing jet that hit the WTC. I remember when I saw the WTC towers get hit the first thing I thought is that they were hit by a small bi-plane. I didn’t have the sense of how large these buildings were. If I would have been testifying what I saw that day I would have said it was a small aircraft. So now we are led to believe that it was a windowless cargo plane, strapped with a pod and a missile, with a blue Phillips circular logo on the front.
At around the 6:00 mark they start to explain who stands to benefit, they try outlining a motive. They mention the Bush administration, but they never outline what Bush, a multimillionaire and president of the United States, has to gain from the attacks.
At 8:00 they start discussing the Pentagon attack. They begin to explain how one of the hijackers had trouble landing and controlling a single engine aircraft. They forget to draw the parallel between why it’s harder to crash a plane then it is to land it. What’s humorous is that they explain that he did earn his pilot license. This in turn discredits that he didn’t know how to fly a plane. They sort of shoot themselves in the foot on this one.
At 10:48 they mentioned that Air traffic controllers thought it was a military plane making the maneuvers and not a Boeing aircraft. Again, we are running into problems with this debate. First, they show a quote, but fail to list the name of who said such quote. This lends me to believe that it could have been made up. Secondly, if flight 77 is being tracked on radar, I’m assuming that Air traffic control knew that it was indeed flight 77. Now, if it was a military plane that crashed into the Pentagon, such as a cargo plane. They don’t explain how a large military cargo plane could pull off the same maneuvers while a Boeing jet could not have. Secondly, if it was a small military plane, how did its engine parts punch through 3 layers of the Pentagons reinforced concrete? Not to mention we have to assume all the victims of flight 77 are in permanent hiding, but then how do you account for victim teeth DNA that was found at the crash scene? Another flaw in this web of lies?
At 11:00 they try and discredit just one eyewitness testimony that reported that the plane had clipped the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. Most people did not witness this. Out of the couple hundred I’ve seen that did see a Boeing plane, only a couple said that the plane had crash landed first before hitting the Pentagon. This means that loose change picked the weakest testimony and built a case around that, ignoring all the other eyewitness testimony and leading the impressionable to believe that all the eyewitness testimony’s are nothing but lies.
At 11:20 they try and discredit that the light posts were knocked over by the Boeing jet. Instead, they want you to believe that these light posts were all planted by insiders, such as the FBI, even though they fail to mention that this is on a very busy stretch of traffic jammed highway and someone would have seen them carrying these massive light posts. They make the claim that the posts were ripped out of the ground yet were not facing the Pentagon. Let’s look at the absurdity of this statement. First, I’m sure it’s easy to see where a light post has been ripped out of the ground. Second, if light posts being hit at over 500 mph by a Boeing plane always land facing the direction of the target, then I’m sure the FBI would have known this and placed them facing the Pentagon, but something tells me that a light post being nailed by a plane moving 500mph might tip and tumble a bit before landing.
At 11:50 they try drawing a parallel between a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon and a Phantom jet hitting reinforced concrete used in the containment centers of nuclear plants. They say that the wings should have simply sheered off as what is being shown in the Phantom video. The problem with this is that the wingspan of the phantom is wider than the concrete wall that it is hitting. If you crashed a Phantom in the Pentagon, you can bet that the wings are not going to simply sheer off.
At 12:00 they say “In fact, why are there not pieces of the aircraft outside at all?” Well, let’s ask the question. “If it was a military cargo plane or a military jet like you would like us to assume then where are THOSE pieces of aircraft?” durrrrr. They also mention that zero plane debris was found. Well, I guess it wasn’t a plane after all then. Wait, what were those pictures of engine, landing gear, tires, wheel rims, green insulation, and passenger seating found at the crash scene? Also notice how they say, “A hundred tons of titanium, steel, and aluminum, gone”. A hundred tons is 200,000 lbs. Let’s analyze why this is incorrect. A more accurate assessment is that the max takeoff weight of a Boeing jet is around 255,000 pounds. The actual weight of the aircraft empty is around 128,730 lb (64 tons) with a fuel load of 11,500 gallons. One gallon is equivalent to 5.8 to 6.5 lbs. If we are conservative the fuel load itself weighs 66,700 lbs. The rest is passenger and cargo. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but they seem to be a little confused on most of their information. Very few parts of the plane are made up of titanium even though they would like you to believe a very large percentage of it is.
At 12:25 “Employees were seen taking away a large box…” Let’s highlight some good points I found on another website. “It's to be found on many other sites, too, although without the extra details that are added here. So is this a plausible story? We don't think so, for the following reasons.
#1, the idea that a large piece of wing will be found after hitting the reinforced Pentagon wall, at 500 mph, seems unlikely. Especially so large that you can readily identify it as something else.
#2, even if that is possible, take a look at the photo again. If these men are "carrying" something then it doesn't look like it weighs anything at all: some are using one arm only, others just vaguely steering, no-one looks like they're breaking a sweat.
#3, note that there are no references here for the important details. Who says it was a piece of wreckage? Who identified it as from a wing? Flocco doesn't say -- we're just supposed to believe it.
#4, the photograph itself proves nothing. We don't know when it was take, or where. The conspiracy sites who use this image like to say it shows something being taken away, but never have any explanation of how they know that, either. Why can it not be something being brought to the Pentagon?
#5, there are alternative candidates for lightweight objects being bought to the Pentagon, too. Take a look at this Pentagon cleanup photo, for instance -- the grounds are full of tents, and there's a few blue tarpaulins around, too. See http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...8006R-005.html for the original.
#6, we found a version of the original photo that contained the URL http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/sres...ef=defenselink in its Comments field (right-click in Windows, select Properties > Advanced). This site is restricted so we can't confirm it's correct, but if so it raises another question. If this image is depicting some key moment of evidence destruction, then would the conspirators take a photograph, then preserve it forever online? Doesn't make a lot of sense to us.
None of this can prove there isn't something suspicious happening here, but then proving a negative is always tricky. What we can say is that the "carrying away a wing" claim seems unlikely for several reasons, and there’s a distinct lack of any evidence to support it.”
These videos are funny, missles were shot at the World Trade Center.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingColors
Other nuts believe that explosives were used to bring the World Trade Centers down.
Yeah, ok. what else can we think of:
Elvis is still alive
There was more than one JFK shooter
Lochness monster
Saquatch
Abominable Snowman
The Aliens at Area 51....
OK, I am sure Midnight Mike will like this one....
In 1979 or 1980 I was sitting in the Eastern 727 sim at JFK with my mom
in the left seat (This was the first time she ever was in control of any
aircraft or aircraft simulator). I pushed the throttles up as we started to
roll out of Washington as my dad gave her instructions to pull back a little
and I then raised the gear and raised the flaps a notch.... then 2
notches....then they were retracted. My mom asked "What are those two
vertical rows of lights" as she steered the aircraft towards them. My dad
told us it was the Washington monument and she (WITH NO EXPERIENCE
other then a car drivers license) steered the aircraft right at it. I
watched as the lights (Very quickly) went to either side of the windows
and my father said "You just took out the Washington Monument" and
laughed..... I thought that it was amazing that she was able to steer that
well as we gained altitude because we were wayyyy to fast.
This was my Mom in the left seat with me (An 6 or 7 year old) in the right
seat. My older brother was in the jump seat and my dad was either
standing or sitting in the sim operations seat.
I listen to people who do not know sh!t saying things in the media
like "NO WAY an armature can hit a building" and laugh my ass off! Then
people like Tommy land a multi million dollar Sim and GREASE the
landings........but it is not possible to land a real aircraft if you fly flight
Sim....ITS A GAME!!! RIGHT?
occam's razor, Plane hit 2 buildings, 2 others missing with 2 holes in
the ground....... I am done ;)
FYI: Hitting the monument did NOT register as a crash....only hitting the ground in that sim was a crash..... Just in case someone was a little confused on how a 727 could continue to fly ;)
I did! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Derf
A couple Saturday nights ago, I wasn't feeling well and wound up staying home alone. While perusing through some stupid Myspace bulletins, I found a link to the video Gotham mentioned. In the past, the mere mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories were shot down by me. For some reason, probably boredom, I wound up watching this entire documentary. Like Gotham said, there are several questions that aren't answered and that don't add up...but in the grand scheme of things, it's damn near impossible for such a conspiracy to be pulled off. Thousands of eyewitnesses were involved....thousands of families....workers, etc. People DIED. Now consider this: "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead" I'm sure you've all heard this saying. Even just concerning the Pentagon, if there were all of these eyewitnesses and/or surveillance tapes handed over by civilians, and something was being covered up, SOMEONE would have said something by now. It's human nature to want to blab and share information that other people would find interesting. If all of these people's deaths were faked, that ads SO many more innocent civilians to the equation, making it even more impossible to keep things hush.Quote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
So, while I think that there are some pretty radical coincidences, and the government might be concealing certain things from the public, I do NOT think that it was a conspiracy planned by the US Government. However it was executed, it was an act of terrorism, in my opinion.
Well said, I do think that the Goverment really screwed up.
I came across this site that debunks the Loose Change video.
A LONG read, but worth it I think.
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Just as Mel mentioned, people died. My cousin was on that flight and I read about all these theories. But if a 757 never hit the building, then where's my cousin?
I also question, why did the FBI never release the other security camera tapes?? I seriously would like a look at them. The one they realeased its very hard to make out a plane. Maybe in the near future, but it's 5 years already. I don't know..
There are a lot of things that take time to have released. Keep in mind the audio tapes form 911 calls only came out a couple weeks ago.
In vestigations go on for years and years, and I'm sure that over time, things will come out.
I personally believe that some of these things don't need to be released anyway. There is footage of many plane crashes out there that never get released because people don't need to see it.
With all due respect, and my condolences.Quote:
Originally Posted by fly.mcs
Don't you think it would be very easy to have someone "removed"
Again I'm sorry for your loss and this is not a disrespectful comment.