PDA

View Full Version : The American Government really did engineer 9/11



Pages : 1 [2]

fancygirl
06-28-2006, 01:19 PM
Well, supposedly initially he denied it. And then the US "found" a video of Osama admitting it. But the guy on the video didn't really look that much like Osama. He was chunkier, darker skinned, and was wearing a gold ring-which a source said was something forbidden by Osama's beliefs.

Jay Zeno
06-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Anyone with an open mind would have concluded the moon landing was faked. Wait, which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17? (For a briefing on the missing one, Apollo 13, check out the Ron Howard movie.) Did those thousands of people at NASA keep that secret between 1968 (when Apollo 8 flew around the moon) and 1972? All that telemetry and those transmissions from the equipment left on the moon that went on for years - all faked?

I'm a skeptic and part-time cynic, and I like to question things, and I encourage others to do the same. But I also prefer to follow what I consider valid questions and not fanciful ones by people with an agenda. I would no sooner buy into somebody saying that American Flight 77, with its people on board, wasn't really there than I would believe the manager of a manufacturing plant who claims that his facility doesn't pollute.

You asked a question, and I provided an answer from the facts that I know. You pondered why people would consider you to be anti-government, and I answered that question from the perceptions I have. I have nothing against you or the questions you ask. I'm just telling another side. Keep on asking questions. And despite the fact simply voicing a contrary view will be decried as repression, contrary views will still be expressed. That's what makes up a dialogue.

~Nikki~
06-28-2006, 02:39 PM
I'm a skeptic and part-time cynic, and I like to question things, and I encourage others to do the same. But I also prefer to follow what I consider valid questions and not fanciful ones by people with an agenda.


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it- Aristotle

Jay Zeno
06-28-2006, 03:03 PM
Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. - Ambrose Bierce

~Nikki~
06-28-2006, 04:36 PM
Truth, indeed, is something that is believed in completely only by persons who have never tried personally to pursue it to its fastness and grab it by the tail - Mencken

Deogol
06-28-2006, 04:59 PM
I love fools. I can sell them anything! -- Deogol

~Nikki~
06-28-2006, 05:32 PM
It is disturbing how a person who is simply looking at a situation from another perspective than the pre approved and government sanctioned one is called names like "mad" and "fool".

I think the real question that needs to be asked here is why is it such a threat to some members for FancyGirl to examine all the available information on 9/11?

She is not asking anyone to concede to a position other than their own. In fact she is just looking out of the box in order to decide for herself what position she wants to take on the subject. Does she not have the same right to decide for herself what she believes to be true as those who agree with the government?

What is with the overt intimidation tactics to get her to stop gathering information and presenting or discussing that information?

BlindGroping
06-28-2006, 06:03 PM
I've believed someone connected to the government has had a hand in it almost since day 1.
I've told a few people about my suspicions, and they are happy to knock it down without giving it any real thought. It's no use debating or arguing or explaining to people that are fanatical about their own beliefs.
Don't think it's that way? Try discussing alternative religions with Christian Fundamentalists.

Deogol
06-28-2006, 07:55 PM
What is with the overt intimidation tactics to get her to stop gathering information and presenting or discussing that information?

Intimidation by facts.

That's a good one. :D

Jay Zeno
06-28-2006, 08:17 PM
Truth, n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. - Ambrose Bierce


I thought opinions and/or facts were being asked for, and I offered mine. Nowhere did I threaten or intimidate or express fear of alternate viewpoints. Why are the facts that I presented (which were not rebutted) so intimidating that they can only be met with standard accusations of government fawning?

I've got an open mind, but I've yet to hear a plausible theory of how the remains of the passengers, crew, and hijackers of Flight 77 worked their way into the wreckage of the Pentagon without that actual flight crashing into it a little over an hour after the 757 took off with the passengers.

~Nikki~
06-28-2006, 09:18 PM
I personally don't believe much of what the video links present either. My view is expressed on page one. However, I do think that FancyGirl is being bullied to a certain degree because she dares to question the pre approved government explanation. It is that which I am opposing.

I see nothing wrong with her wanting to look outside the box while making up her own mind as to what did or did not happen. It appears that can not be said for other people posting in this thread and that as I mentioned before is disturbing.

As for the concept of truth in situations such as this one I have another quote to add and then I am going to move on to other site topics. The quote is as follows:

Truth - Something somehow discreditable to someone.

H.L. Mencken

goo321
06-28-2006, 09:57 PM
Wait, which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17? (For a briefing on the missing one, Apollo 13, check out the Ron Howard movie.) Did those thousands of people at NASA keep that secret between 1968 (when Apollo 8 flew around the moon) and 1972? All that telemetry and those transmissions from the equipment left on the moon that went on for years - all faked? Yes, yes, yes. I was commenting on the TV show. Not stating my moon landing beliefs.


You asked a question, and I provided an answer from the facts that I know. You pondered why people would consider you to be anti-government, and I answered that question from the perceptions I have. I have nothing against you or the questions you ask. I'm just telling another side. Keep on asking questions. And despite the fact simply voicing a contrary view will be decried as repression, contrary views will still be expressed. That's what makes up a dialogue.Are you talking to me?


If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
- Oscar Wilde

The man who insists on seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides.
- Henri-Frederic Amiel

its the fool who plays it cool, and makes the world a colder place
-beatles

anything worth doing, is worth doing with enthuism


why no jew theories?
arent they the ones with the most to gain?

fancygirl
06-28-2006, 10:43 PM
I thought opinions and/or facts were being asked for, and I offered mine. Nowhere did I threaten or intimidate or express fear of alternate viewpoints. Why are the facts that I presented (which were not rebutted) so intimidating that they can only be met with standard accusations of government fawning?

I've got an open mind, but I've yet to hear a plausible theory of how the remains of the passengers, crew, and hijackers of Flight 77 worked their way into the wreckage of the Pentagon without that actual flight crashing into it a little over an hour after the 757 took off with the passengers.


Oh Jay...give me some time. I don't have all the time in the world you know, so I am in the process of fact checking certain points. I already rebutted your point about bodies earlier on page three, but here it is again:



Here's a quotation from The 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions:

(Why were there) no remains of a Boeing 757...visible inside
the Pentagon(?)... According to this explanation, the fire
created with the Pentagon was so hot that it not only melted the
airplane, including the tempered steel engines, but even
vaporized it. This explanation, however, would bring us back to
the problem of the type of fire that would be needed to produce
such effects. A fire fed by jet fuel could at most rise to 1,700
degress Fahrenheit, we recall, but to melt steel a fire would have
to be 2,770 degrees. A fire that could completely vaporize steel
would have to be still hotter. Furthermore, the claim that the fire
was so hot as to melt or even vaporize the steel would not fit
well with another part of the official story--the claim that the
bodies of the passengers on Flight 77 were identified by their
fingerprints. How could a commission whose task was to try to
explain what really happened on 9/11 have failed to investigate any of
these contradictions? ([emphasis added] Griffin, 34-6).



Besides that, remains that were found in the building were identified through massive and thorough identification procedures, using hundreds of people, to almost all of the people on-board American Flight 77. Several people's remains were never found, and there were also remains that were too cooked to be identifiable. All the remains were claimed by the families except for the remains of the hijackers.


Take this point, for example. I have to dig through the official 9/11 commission handbook, but according to Ommissions and Distortions the bodies were supposedly identified by fingerprints, when the whole plane vaporized? Even if they were throwing around body parts, I'd find it hard to believe that steel with a melting point of 1370*C (2500 F) would leave body parts to identify. It'd be liquified, wouldn't it? Now, there WERE bodies, but there were about 800 (mostly civilian contractors working since that wing was emptied for construction purposes) people IN that wing. I'm sure they weren't liquified and those were identified. But as for people on a plane that vaporized and left only an 18 ft. diameter hole? You don't find that the least bit curious? <temps taken from


When you buy into such a fanciful theory that readily, and argue against contrary views, yeah, it does leave that impression.

You don't deal in derision and aggressive antogonism like deogal, that is true. But have you watched Loose Change? It's not like it has answers, but it has a lot of questions and at least shows you the pictures to show why the questions shouldn't be automatically labeled "fanciful."
If you watch it and want to go point by point, "this is bullshit, and this is bullshit, and this is bullshit" fine. Please point out parts that you feel are wholly innaccurate. But at least watch it, or a significant chunk of it.

fancygirl
06-28-2006, 11:03 PM
You need to learn some physics. The size the 747 at 480 miles an hour means there was that much more kinetic energy in the blast.


Yes, there was more kinetic energy with the Boeing than there was with the F4 Phantom but I'm still having a hard time trying to compare the vaporizing of the small plane to the vaporizing of the large plane and yet STILL having bodies from the airplane still being able to be identified.

Your video would be great proof for the Boeing vaporizing because the Boeing had a lot more joules of kinetic energy. But in your video, it looked like the wings of the F4 affected the wall, i.e. it vaporized too, but you weren't left with a circular hole--the wall was impacted significantly where the wings hit.

So, for the Pentagon, if the plane did vaporize:
a) why were there any bodies still able to be recovered, let alone identified, and,
b) why was there only a circular hole if the wings hit? The wings would have to hit to also be vaporized (it's not as if the nose hit and then the hole thing disappeared.) so the wall should have shown it.

Deogol
06-28-2006, 11:17 PM
I personally don't believe much of what the video links present either. My view is expressed on page one. However, I do think that FancyGirl is being bullied to a certain degree because she dares to question the pre approved government explanation. It is that which I am opposing.

I see nothing wrong with her wanting to look outside the box while making up her own mind as to what did or did not happen. It appears that can not be said for other people posting in this thread and that as I mentioned before is disturbing.

As for the concept of truth in situations such as this one I have another quote to add and then I am going to move on to other site topics. The quote is as follows:

Truth - Something somehow discreditable to someone.

H.L. Mencken

Facts are disturbing.

Interesting.

Deogol
06-28-2006, 11:21 PM
Yes, there was more kinetic energy with the Boeing than there was with the F4 Phantom but I'm still having a hard time trying to compare the vaporizing of the small plane to the vaporizing of the large plane and yet STILL having bodies from the airplane still being able to be identified.

Your video would be great proof for the Boeing vaporizing because the Boeing had a lot more joules of kinetic energy. But in your video, it looked like the wings of the F4 affected the wall, i.e. it vaporized too, but you weren't left with a circular hole--the wall was impacted significantly where the wings hit.

So, for the Pentagon, if the plane did vaporize:
a) why were there any bodies still able to be recovered, let alone identified, and,
b) why was there only a circular hole if the wings hit? The wings would have to hit to also be vaporized (it's not as if the nose hit and then the hole thing disappeared.) so the wall should have shown it.

The wall in the F4 test didn't have windows.

However, the sum of the outer wall and the inner walls (which are also re-inforced) equaled enough destruction power for the plane.

The plane wasn't totally destroyed - one can see bits and pieces of the more indestructable pieces around.

The wall did show it - it absorbed enough energy to destablilize it and allow it to collapse later on.

fancygirl
06-28-2006, 11:47 PM
^huh. let me think.
I need to track down the photo that I'm thinking of, but from the photos that I've been looking at while trying to track that down, you're right in that there was damage outside that hole, but not as deep. I need to find that photo, but until then I ran across this website. Could a wall, no matter how reinforced, still be able to have unbroken windows after having a steel plane crash into it with enough KE to vaporize?




Also, you mention "The wall in the F4 test didn't have windows." I couldn't figure out which part of the discussion you're referring to?

Jay Zeno
06-29-2006, 05:14 AM
If there were some fingerprints, then I imagine they were used for identification. The forensic pathologists used everything they could - fingerprints, dental records, recovered identification - but to the largest extent, DNA. The fire and force of the crash consumed a lot. They didn't consume everything.

Somtimes the pathologists had whole, identifiable bodies to work with, like people in the Pentagon who were killed by buildng collapse, or smoke inhalation, or assorted trauma. Sometimes they had just shreds of flesh to work with. Sometimes they had to surgically separate pieces of bodies, as best they could, that had been jammed together and merged through the impact. And sometimes they had pieces of bodies that were just too carbonized from the fire to be identifiable.

It was hard, heartbreaking work, and they went at it for weeks, doing everything they could to preserve every scrap that they found for identification and respectful treatment and return to the families when the process was completed. Most of the passengers, hijackers, and crew of Flight 77 were identified. A few were vaporized and remains were not found, or at least not identified.

I've seen various videos about the conspiracy. I have information on the forensic pathology processes conducted by the DoD. Conspiracy allegations are a routine part of just about every noteworthy event that goes on now involving the government, and so be it. I'm not a huge fan of the government, even on the occasion that people I voted for are running it. And certainly, nothing I say is going to stop the conspiracy allegations, whether there's any substance to them or they're formed out of thin air.

GURU OF $IN
10-10-2006, 12:53 AM
The Bush government not only let it happen to go to war, but actually had a big hand in it.
There are facts and records to prove it.

Its more complicated than people think.

Get the documentary 9-11: Rise of the Police State

Chapter 1: Police State NY
Chapter 2: An Inside Job
Chapter 3: Order of Death (mainly talks about the bohemian grove)
Chapter 4: World Empire

Watch it and you will get convinced yourself, this is not just theories, they actually show you the proofs, the records, the names, the dates, and everything.

This guy is not about bashing Bush to support Kerry. He is against them Both.

He is about unleashing the truth and uncovering the lies that were told to the public.

MishaBliss
10-10-2006, 07:38 AM
There are facts and records to prove it? and there is no possible way that they could be manufactured to sell a story?
Unleashing the proof and uncovering the lies? Tell me why you believe HIM? Is he not as capable of lying for personal gain?

TheSexKitten
10-10-2006, 12:42 PM
Bah! The fact that these idiots making conspiracy vids like these are still alive and that the videos are still accessible is proof that they're bullshit. Simple as that.

lmao, read this:

GURU OF $IN
10-11-2006, 03:19 AM
There are facts and records to prove it? and there is no possible way that they could be manufactured to sell a story?
Unleashing the proof and uncovering the lies? Tell me why you believe HIM? Is he not as capable of lying for personal gain?

I posted the video link in a new thread.