I can allow that Bush might have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and that maybe it's a government conspiracy after all. Maybe there was even a government camera set up to film it when the first plane hit, who really knows? But NO WAY would they make a live feed to Bush at a school for him to see it firsthand, when there would be a very large chance of someone at the school seeing it (or even Secret Service personnel or other staff outside of Bush's "inner circle"); that would be way too much risk of blowing up a conspiracy of an event so huge.

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 12:30:14 AM

Photo of damaged Pentagon before the outer ring collapsed with a 757 superimposed over the photograph. Did a 757 cause this damage? http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm

12/31/2003 12:33:56 AM

while i have researched this from more angles than anyone should, i dont much feel like going in to all the details about how this is a giant cover up....and im not a conspiracy theorist, this is too damn easy to see how this is all a big lie....Wag the Dog perhaps?

12/31/2003 12:50:15 AM

"and im not a conspiracy theorist" ? that must be a typoe if your telling me that 911 was a big lie

12/31/2003 12:55:29 AM

I'm not going to read all the replies...

but who gives a shit, really?

Does the president stop whatever he is doing every time a plane crashes, or a train derails? fuck no

12/31/2003 12:55:52 AM

ok, even if bush did watch it on tv b/c he knew it was gonna happen and wanted to watch it, would he promptly tell the media that he watched it happen on tv? i would be inclined to believe that if the bush admin. was really doing something so terrible, they would want to keep it a secret. in the spirit of keeping it a secret, i don't think bush would let the media in on his secret tv hookup in an interview. i think that might have been too risky that such a statement would raise some eyebrows and maybe expose their secret.

12/31/2003 12:56:25 AM

if it was a missile that hit the Pentagon then where the fuck are the people who were on Flight 77? Huh? HUH??

12/31/2003 1:30:07 AM

a wizard did it

12/31/2003 1:38:38 AM

Quote :

"Josh8315: Just tell me the 'why'? Bush knows about the attacks, lets them happen and then fire a missle at the pentagon? just tell me why."

To convince us to do the bidding of teh j00z...

12/31/2003 9:21:29 AM

Quote :

"Photo of damaged Pentagon before the outer ring collapsed with a 757 superimposed over the photograph. Did a 757 cause this damage?"

Because god knows if I was ever going to crash a plane into a building on the ground, I'd make sure I hit it at ground level using my basic piloting skills, even though it's pretty damned complicated to fly with that sort of precision.

12/31/2003 4:35:09 PM

christ i don't like Bush at all but this is just damn ridiculous.

12/31/2003 5:36:43 PM

To label people who want to merely want to look into facts and try to understand things (in this case try to make sense of the highly suspect 'story' offered as the explanation for what happened on 9.11.01) as "conspiracy theorists" is misleading. The media has conditioned the masses to think of certain people who question the 'official story' by the government as "conspiracy theorists" (the connotation being that these people are 'wacko').

Conspiracies are common and have occured throughout human history. People routinely conspire to commit all sorts of crimes...including robbery and murder. We have laws against "conspiracy to commit murder", etc. Governments have been involved in conspiracies. The Nazis conspired to conquer Europe militarily.

Still, there is a difference between developing a theory and investigating a situation to determine the facts. It would be rather foolish to think it is impossible that our own U.S. government could be involved in conspiracies. It would be more foolish to dismiss people as "wackos" for merely seeking to investigate a situation and determine the facts.


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 5:49:13 PM

12/31/2003 6:02:13 PM

Quote :

"last time i checked they don't have T.V's in the hallway of an elementry school. and how could he have seen the first plane hit the trade towers when it first happened??? "

i'm also sure the elementary schools you have been in didn't happen to have the President of the United States in them at the same time as your presence.

12/31/2003 6:09:31 PM

ahahaha PWNT

12/31/2003 6:15:21 PM

Ponder what Bush said to the UN.

Quote :

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. ---George W. Bush, Speech to the United Nations, November 10, 2001 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/10/ret.bush.un.transcript/ "

Never tolerate??

Does this mean that those who question the official story offered by the government will be silenced or detained?


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 6:19:58 PM

^ doubtful. I can't tollerate you, but for some reason you're never silenced or detained.

12/31/2003 6:23:47 PM

Quote :

"ahahaha PWNT"

12/31/2003 6:26:28 PM

I think these are very good points: (in regard to the 'crash' at the Pentagon)

Quote :

"Why is the outer façade of the building fully intact, with most of the windows unbroken after a 100 ton passenger plane has just impacted directly into its side at a minimum of 250 to 300 MPH? In consideration of the fact that the impacting plane was unable to penetrate through the outer wall of the Pentagon we must assume that it's wreckage is still in front of the building. Where is the 100-ton giant passenger plane to be found in this picture? Inasmuch as the strong outer wall of the Pentagon was impenetrable by the impacting aircraft, massive quantities of fuel from the plane's ruptured tanks must have flooded the grass at the front of the Pentagon. Why is the grass not a raging inferno and littered with large and small pieces of aircraft debris? Why are fires burning within the building, behind largely unbroken windows? Surely the windows would need to be broken first to allow the aircraft's fuel to gush through and swamp the interior. http://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html"

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 7:04:30 PM

I see a bunch of broken windows

plus, the plane cartwheeled into the building. It hit the fucking ground first


furthermore, it appears the conspiracy theorist are contradicting themselves.


my finaly question, if the pentagon was not attacked with flight 77, then what the fuck happened to flight 77? DId it just disappear? Where the people inside apart of the conspiracy? Honestly, what happened to 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

12/31/2003 7:20:01 PM

Quote :

"plus, the plane cartwheeled into the building. It hit the fucking ground first --nutsmackr "

Really? All the photographs I have seen show a largely unblemished lawn in front of the Pentagon.



http://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 7:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 7:24:08 PM

great camera angle

But do you notice the spotch where the fire engines are sitting? Do you see that little gully before that? honestly, get real fucking pictures, not distortions that do not show everything.

12/31/2003 7:25:30 PM

Quote :

"honestly, get real fucking pictures, not distortions that do not show everything. ---nutsmackr"

Why put all the burden on me? Why don't you find a picture that shows damage to the ground in front of the crash area?

At least I have offered some evidence. What you offered? Your own opinion?

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 7:27:13 PM

because youa re the one trying to say it didn't happen

it is incumbent upon you to prove that it didn't happen, not me to prove it did happen, cuz everyone knows it did happen.

12/31/2003 7:28:35 PM

The picture speaks for itself. There is no evidence of a plane hitting the ground in front of the Pentagon (ie, no substantial damage is seen at least 5-10 feet from the building in the lawn).

At least I have provided evidence. And the best you can do is say the photograph is "distorted"?

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 7:31:18 PM

I think Bush meant to say that he saw that an airplane had hit the tower.

12/31/2003 7:35:40 PM

I just don't get it. Bush says stupid shit all the time. Why is this time any more special than others?

12/31/2003 8:20:28 PM

5-10 feet?!?!

do you not see the burn marks, I mean honestly, are you that blind

plus there is a video put out by the Pentagon, from their security cameras taht show a plane colliding.

12/31/2003 8:23:09 PM

What I posted above is not what I meant to say (I didn't type what I intended to say).

What I meant to say is that from the photographs, no substantial damage is seen in the lawn BEYOND a short distance from the building (perhaps 5 to 10 feet away from the building). Obviously, there is likely to be damage to the lawn that is very close to the building due to debris from the building due to the collapse.


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 8:37:51 PM

k

here is my next question

what happened to all the people on Flight 77 and what happened to the flight?

please answer me that.

12/31/2003 8:48:42 PM

Quote :

"what happened to all the people on Flight 77 and what happened to the flight?"

I don't know the answer to that question (at this time). Perhaps I (and we) won't know the answer to that question for a long time. Somebody knows, though.

Some of the people who have investigated the 9-11 events have theorized that Flight 77 (and the passengers and crew) could have been disposed of by some other means by the government (such as executing the passengers and crew and then disposing of the plane in some manner). They offer these theories as an explanation of why Flight 77 (and the passengers and crew) have apparantly disappeared. I haven't seen any proof of what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers and crew. Those theories are mere speculation (and those person have admitted that they are speculating).

What IS clear from the evidence is that Flight 77 was not the 'aircraft' (ie, plane, missile, etc.) that hit the Pentagon.


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 9:05:00 PM

No it is not you dumbass.

12/31/2003 10:17:08 PM

^^Do you realize how hard that would be for the government to do

and seriously, why would the government do that?

12/31/2003 10:20:13 PM

Quote :

"No it is not you dumbass."

Really? Then if a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, why did it not leave a hole in the building such as the planes did that hit the WTC? Where is the plane wreckage at the Pentagon? (a 757 is a 100 ton aircraft) In all of the other plane crashes involving airliners I have seen, there is always plane wreckage.

Look at the photograph. Did a 757 really slam into the Pentagon? There is only a small hole in the wall. Many of the windows are not even broken. If the aircraft did not penetrate the building, the wreckage of the aircraft should be in front of the building. Where is the 100 tons of wreckage? Did the plane evaporate? I have never heard of jet airliners evaporating in a crash. There is always wreckage.


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 10:24:34 PM

The pentagon is a fortress, the World Trade Towers weren't.

12/31/2003 10:33:24 PM

this thread hurts my goddamn head. even for a salisburyboy thread, this one is bad.

12/31/2003 10:36:40 PM

Quote :

"The pentagon is a fortress, the World Trade Towers weren't. --nutsmackr"

Ok, you're theorizing that the '757' did not penetrate the wall of the Pentagon, right? Then where is the evidence of the 100 tons of plane wreckage? In all the previous jet airliner crashes I have seen, there is always wreckage. Jet airliners that crash do not vaporize.

Where is the wreckage?


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 10:38:59 PM

i missed the point somewhere and im not rereading. i mean i gather that you have this theory that we were lied to so answer two questions for me:

1) what really happened?
2) why?

and do it in your own words without any fucking pictures or links to retarded, biased websites. i just want a simple explanation.

12/31/2003 10:40:32 PM

I'm not going to do that (in great detail). You can read the thread if you truly wish to know. What I will say is that if you look at the photographs of the damage to the Pentagon, it raises serious questions about what really hit the Pentagon. Look at the photograph above on this page of the thread. If a 757 really hit the Pentagon, would not a hole be in the building like those at the WTC? Also, where is the wreckage of the 757? To my knowledge, no evidence of the 757 exists in the rubble. A 757 weighs 100 tons and jet airliners do not vaporize when they crash.

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 10:43:31 PM

no it doesnt.

do you even know wtf you are talking about or do you just type "crazy fucking conspiracy theories" into google and get a chubby looking at whatever pops up when you click "i'm feeling lucky"?

12/31/2003 10:45:26 PM

It doesn't? Why is there no large hole in the building the size of a 757 (like occured at the WTC)?

Explain that to me, moonman.

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 10:48:33 PM

firt of all, it didn't go in straight as your conspiracy presuposes

secondly part of the plane went over the pentagon, yes, over

thirdly, the flames from that fire were so fucking hot it melted the fucking alumnimum and such and most of the plane was completely incinerated.


fourthly, the pentagon is a fortress as I said earlier, itwas built to withstand attack, it's walls are fucking massive

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 10:57 PM. Reason : k you are dumb quit with the conspiracy shit]

12/31/2003 10:56:28 PM

Quote :

"firt of all, it didn't go in straight as your conspiracy presuposes ---nutsmackr"

All the websites I have referenced acknowledge and know that the 'aircraft' that hit the Pentagon came in at an angle (approximately a 45 degree angle). Thus, you don't know what you are talking about.

Secondly, you say I have a "conspiracy". Maybe I missed something, but am I "conspiring" to do something here in this thread? I thought that a conspiracy, by definition, involved more than one person. Here is the second time you showed that you don't know what you are talking about.

Did you mean to say that I was a "conspiracy theorist"? Probably so. Why do you insist on labelling what amounts to a factual inquiry as a "conspiracy theory"? Are you just parrotting what the media and George W. Bush has said involving those who question the official story of September 11, 2001?

Quote :

"secondly part of the plane went over the pentagon, yes, over ---nutsmackr"

REALLY?....a substantial portion of the "plane"?......what evidence is there to support this claim?


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 11:27:22 PM

it's not parroting anything

and the plane did mroe than a 45° angle. it went in almost end over end. Look at the damned photos from the Pentagon security camera showing the plane hitting the tower.

12/31/2003 11:30:24 PM

With respect to the 45 degree angle, I was referring to the horizontal angle in reference to the face of the wall that was struck , not the angle in reference vertically to the ground.

Quote :

"thirdly, the flames from that fire were so fucking hot it melted the fucking alumnimum and such and most of the plane was completely incinerated. --nutsmackr"

Incinerated, huh? In all the jet airliner crashes I have ever seen, there is always wreckage left behind...bodies, parts of the plane, etc. Can you explain why in this case the plane "incinerated"?....WHY?...Why this time?

Quote :

"fourthly, the pentagon is a fortress as I said earlier, itwas built to withstand attack, it's walls are fucking massive ---nutsmackr"

Did you know that the World Trade Center towers were built and designed to withstand the impact of jet airliners? That is a fact. The towers stood for a long time after they hit, too. What do you say about that?

Quote :

"you are dumb quit with the conspiracy shit ---nutsmackr"

I'm the "dumb" one? Coming from you, that is a complement. I'm no genius, but you need to examine yourself.

[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 11:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 11:49:14 PM

Quote :

"The towers stood for a long time after they hit, too. What do you say about that?"

The towers are tall as hell. Also, no matter what precautions are taken, things will melt at those temperatures. So, once that one section on the tower completely melts, that which is above it will also fall. After that, everything fell due to momentum (chain reaction).

The Pentagon is short. There isn't much above or below where it got hit. So, the building did not come crumbling down because there was not enough for a chain reaction.

12/31/2003 11:54:52 PM

I have read that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Furthermore, those towers fell long after the fire was at its hottest point. The fires were subsiding and then suddenly the towers collapsed. If it was the fire that caused the collapse, why did the collapse not occur earlier when the fire was the hottest?

Those towers were designed and built to withstand a jet airliner impact. That is a fact.


[Edited on December 31, 2003 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2003 11:58:06 PM

a 727 not a fucking 757

where as the Pentagon was built to withstand bomb blasts

the towers fell because the fire proofing (asbesthos) was removed and new fire proofing was in the process of being added.


Jet fuel may not burn that hot, but the other shit the jet fuel sets on fire will

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:07 AM. Reason : misspoke]

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/1/2004 12:06:44 AM

Quote :

"I have read that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. "

Is this another one of your geocities sources? Also, IT HAPPENED. There is no dispute that planes crashed into the towers and made it crash down.

Quote :

"Furthermore, those towers fell long after the fire was at its hottest point. The fires were subsiding and then suddenly the towers collapsed."

Oh Lord gives me strength. Even common sense can solve this one. First, fuel does not burn all at once. There is a crapload of it. Also, it was burning all sorts of material on the inside. Also, just because no flames exist doesn't mean it is hot as hell in there. Furthermore, the blast could have destroyed enough to make it structually unsound. With all that weight on top of the melted steel, which was no longer structurally sound, it was only a matter of time before it gave way.

Quote :

"If it was the fire that caused the collapse, why did the collapse not occur earlier when the fire was the hottest?"

Please read above. You are no Industrial / structural / mechanical / any sort of engineer.

Quote :

"Those towers were designed and built to withstand a jet airliner impact. "

In case you didn't notice, they failed because of the reasons I mentioned.

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:14 AM. Reason : pie]

1/1/2004 12:13:18 AM

Quote :

"There is no dispute that planes crashed into the towers and made it crash down. --CapnObvious "

Partly right, partly wrong. There is no dispute that planes crashed into the towers. There is a dispute, however, as to what exactly caused the towers to collapse.

For instance, explain why the second tower hit was the first to collapse. Furthermore, the second tower hit was hit on the corner of the building and much of the jet fuel exploded in the air, while the plane that crashed into the first tower hit crashed into the middle of the building. Why did the first tower to be hit not collapse first since it was 1)hit first and 2)was hit more directly?

[Edited on January 1, 2004 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/1/2004 12:32:35 AM