Conspiracy Theoriest: 9/11 Pentagon attack

[PanterA]

According to this they believe that the plane head for the Pentagon may have been shot down and what hit the Pentagon was a friendly missle.

You decide (Be prepaired to speed read) (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf)

<center><img style="backround:COLOR" style="color:BLACK" style="border style:double 3px" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/pants_sig.gif">
"I sorry to interupt the politic, please is it possible I make a shit in your house? It very urgent, I have a problem...please." -Borat from Da Ali G Show</center><font color=white>

[DESERTEAGLE.50]

That was actually pretty compelling.
Whatever your beliefs I suggest you watch it.
Real interesting find.

FINGA FONGA FINGA FONGA MOTHER FAH
<IMG SRC=http://cloominati.250free.com/sig_deserteagle3.gif>

[reeshy]

Very scary...reminds me of the Grassy Knoll!!!!! Where are the pieces of the plane???

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

http://reeshyman.blogspot.com/

[SilentSpic]

Awesome find PanterA! I watched it at least three times. So freaking sad.

<center><a href="http://www.silentpix.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Myalbums&file=index"><img src="http://www.silentpix.com/images/mysigs/rotate.php" border="0"></a><br>COS15 & M1 Production

[Doctor Manhattan]

Very intresting, but if that missle was meant for the plane and missed (hitting the pentagon) where was the plane? There was an American Airlines Flight 77 and people were lost. It had to crash somewhere.

<a href="Katelyn Faber"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[Teenweek]

Maybe the government is hiding it with the martians in area 51.

[Gringo Star]

I'm convinced.



It doesn't take much.

<center><a href="http://www.diggerphelps.net/home.html"><img src="http://www.diggerphelps.net/Things/RonFezsig.gif"></a></center>

[BoondockSaint]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/squrl/piazzazakk.jpg
M1 is the shit!

[Freakshow]

Yeah, Snopes pretty much rips that whole thing to shreads.


Whoever made the film also doesn't quite have a firm grasp of geography. The plane would not have passed over 395, but a much smaller road--110--which at any moment would have maybe 5 cars on it.

Plus don't security cameras stream and not record. I'm not completly certain, but I would think the traffic camera (traffic cameras on 110 are not very likely) would not record just broadcast live images.


<center><img width=300 src=http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=Freakshow>
Thanks Furtherman, Reefdweller, and Monsterone!<br>I hate traveling, mostly because my dad used to beat me with a globe.</center>

[SatCam]

Great animation, many holes in the story.
"There are no parts of the airplane anywhere"
Hmm... it's as if THERE WAS A FIRE.

Anyone who says "I thought I heard a missle" THOUGHT THEY HEARD A MISSLE. That does not neccessaraly mean that there was one!! That's just a way to describe it because I don't think many people have first hand heard a plane crashing!

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[JimBeam]

I kinda got lost on this one.
Is the " documentary " saying that we blew up our own plane and covered it up or that the attack was by a much smaller plane ?

Sat brings up a good point.
People " thought they heard a missle ", but thats because they've only ever heard them on telivision or in the movies.
Not many know, including myself, what they may actually sound like.

Another thing is why would they hide an attack ?
Would it be any more or less " embrassing " than the Twin Towers being knocked down ?

And wasn't there any family members on this " fictitious " flight that didn't come home ?




I have balls !!!

[Doctor Manhattan]

I guess they faked everything about flight 77, including family members who say they lost their loved ones.

I don't see WHY they would do this. To distract us from the two planes that hit the WTC? The 4th plane in PA? What would the Government have to gain?

<a href="Katelyn Faber"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[Mike Teacher]

I'll offer a motive set forth by those who deny the Apollo Moonwalks.

Think of the gain the USSR could have gotten had it revealed our moonwalks were a Hoax? World laughing stock at minimum?

=

I can think of many many people, countries even, some getting the Shit bombed out of them in response to the plane hitting the Pentagon, that would move Heaven and Earth to uncover the Conspiracy, to show it wasn't them.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[NewYorkDragons80]

Worst conspiracy theory... ever. The supposed rightist elements of the government implicated in most conspiracy theories gain NOTHING by attacking the Pentagon, unless you want to think this is an accidental attack by the US... on the Pentagon on September 11th (Man, what are the odds?). Then there is the small issue of the 64 people aboard Flight 77. Were they sucked into the Maryland triangle?

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-4-04 @ 11:29 AM

[NewYorkDragons80]

Think of the gain the USSR could have gotten had it revealed our moonwalks were a Hoax?
Yup, that's pretty much my best argument when it comes to that little conspiracy.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[schmega]

I guess they faked everything about flight 77, including family members who say they lost their loved ones.

thank you for breaking it down in the most simplest of terms.

anyone who gives this even an iota of thought should hand over their genitals. you dont deserve them.

http://gilseed.home.acedsl.com/spsig.jpg

[JPMNICK]

I think it is a though sell for many reasons. One of them being how the pentagon is made and engineered. It is impossible to compare it to other buildings or accidents we may have seen because it is not built like any other building. it is steel re-inforced with protective walls. It was meant to take the blast from something huge and survive. and it did that. I think it had to have been a plane. I am not sure a missle could have done that anyway. i remember when they were talking about sadaam living in a bunker and how our normal missles could not reach down that far. if it were a missle, it would have never been able to punch through 3 walls of the pentagon.

http://home.comcast.net/~nickcontardo/a_schilling_ft1.jpg
Thanks to Monsterone for my first sig.

[Mike Teacher]

Im reading 'Inviting Disaster' by I cant find His Name coz the books in the bathroom, but he knows a lot about airplanes, and I'm not an expert, I'm not even a pilot, but my dad was, and he showed me that:

There isnt really much to an airplane at All. You ever build those balsa wood airplanes? Ya know the wing is made up of thin balsa sheets, connected with little spars or whatever its called, the tiny balsa strips, and the same for the fuse, and the tail, the stab, etc.

It's all very thin and light. Not fragile, but there's a lot less there then you might think.

Most of an airplane is the engines, and to an extent, the gear. On those big airliners, those are the big things. The Engine alone on one of those babies is the size of a small cessna, so find those and ya got yer plane.

The authour explained, sorry this is graphic, but about how the WTC footage shows a plane seemed to be swallowed up by the tower, youd think thered be this Enormous, huge, long, space shuttle engines like trail of Airplane parts, wings, tails, etc, coming out, but its all so flimsy compared to the WTC that the Concrete of the floors, and this is his description, essentially cut the planes like a bread slicer into thirteen foot high sections. The gear and engines, however, indeed went flying; one landed 1/3 of a mile from the WTC site.

Wow I am SO off topic



[Edit; And 'Flimsy' comes off as rather crass, but he explained about these tower hits; you had the kinetic energy of a 60 ton aircraft, which is a lot of KE, baby, but the WTC has the potential energy, not sure if thise is together, or each, but those towers weighed like 250,000 tons. I'm gonna go check those numbers, but I'm pretty sure I'm close. So while it may look at one scale like a huge collision, it wasnt anything near what the nightmare scenario was, of being able to knock one tower down, and on to another, amde more difficult, on purpose by the diagonal alignment of said towers. That scenario is indeed possible, but, well, you gotta get this book. I know he stated that if it wasnt for the fuel, at least one of the towers, if not both, might still be standing. Again, dont trust me there, where are the experts here!! i stink on ice.]

Can you tell I'm stuck at home?
<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 9-4-04 @ 1:39 PM

[furie]

very compelling.

http://www.911-strike.com/debris1.jpg

where are the pictures of the plane parts from WTC?




<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/fineirony.jpg">
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[SatCam]

The way I took it, actually, was that the missle was hit the plane and hit the pentagon. But due to the fact that a missle hitting a plane would leave parts, I guess the conclusion I got from the video was incorrect.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[Mike Teacher]

where are the pictures of the plane parts from WTC?


In the 9/11 Documentary that was originally about a probie firefighter filmed by two french guys [they were the ones who filmed the first tower getting hit as they were out on a call for a gas leak; its the only 9/11 docu i will watch], there are several shots made by one of the brothers of wreckage in manhattan, and police, and even citizens keeping people away from them.

And like I said, one recovered engine made it 1/3 of a mile.

=

When a B-25 hit the empire state building in 1946 [?] the plane disintegrated but the engines went on their way; one I think went down an elevator shart or something, but another sailed clear through the building out the other side, and ended of taking out some famous arists loft.



<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[furie]

I took it as Flight 77 was shot down by a missile fired by a military jet fighter, and an errant missile fired by that fighter missed and hit the Pentagon.

My problem with that: Are Air-to-Air missiles fired from a jet fighter strong enough to penetrated 3 layers of reinforced concrete walls, and then not detonate?

That picture of the hole in layer C looks like it could have been made by the cone of a plane. about the right size, and it didn't explode as a warhead would have at that point.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>



This message was edited by furie on 9-4-04 @ 4:44 PM

[SatCam]

HOLY SHIT. I just spent TWENTY FUCKING MINUTES explaining somthing and it logged my out and my work is lost.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[SatCam]

Okay, let me take it from the top, for the second time... *groan*

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html states:
"The crash caused a gash on the west side of the Pentagon measuring 30 yards wide and 10 yards deep"

The width of the 757 from wingtip to wingtip 40 yards. That would, assumingly, account for the "gash" of 30 yards because a plane plowing through a building isn't going to leave a perfect 20 yard arched sillouette. I'm not saying that the plane went all way through. In fact, the plane most likely stopped right at the engines. Even if my estimations are off, a smaller plane or a missle could not create such a gap anyway, which only rules into the equation a larger plane or a bomb.

The wings are, from Boeing, "less swept and thicker through the center than those on earlier Boeing airplanes." This, and the theory that the plane hit the ground first, slowing it down, would definatley explain why the plane would stop there, creating the 30 yard "gash".

The theory that a missle hit the pentagons is just baseless. When you think about it, can a missle create a huge fireball followed by thick black oil-burning smoke and fire? Unless there was a 11,000 gallon oil tank in the vacinity of the missle's strike, I doubt it.


Another theory, that outlines the fact that the US government was responsible for September 11th.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm
This is completely outrageous. I really doubt that the US government would plan an attack in which hundreds of airline passengers were on remotely controlled planes headed for known targets. Then, 200 people in the pentagon and thousands of people in the Twin Towers are killed as a result? It is outragous to even consider even if it WAS true. It is definatly not somthing you want to consider or think about.

Also, how the hell does Osama come into this??? Are the Osama videos fabricated in which he claims responsibility for September 11th? If so, I really need to make a video in which I'm fucking my hot French teacher. Can anyone help me out?

Resources for Pentagon attacks info (http://757.batcave.net/specs.html)

And finally, as I was reading theories and chronologies of September 11th, I came accross the following quote: "This chief
also had a bullhorn and traveled to each of the stairwells and shouted the evac-
uation order:"All FDNY, get the fuck out!"As a result of his efforts, many fire-fighters who had not been in the process of evacuating began to do so."

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[ChickenHawk]

The fact that music from Fight Club was used to accompany a video about September 11th is already tasteless in and of itself. Whoever made this video can lick my nutsack.

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

[DESERTEAGLE.50]

very compelling.

http://www.911-strike.com/debris1.jpg

where are the pictures of the plane parts from WTC?




<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/fineirony.jpg">
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>




well...there's 1...I think

FINGA FONGA FINGA FONGA MOTHER FAH
<IMG SRC=http://cloominati.250free.com/sig_deserteagle3.gif>

[furie]

no, that's from the Pentagon.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[DESERTEAGLE.50]

I think that was placed there by an alien from the scrap pile at Regan National Airport only a few miles away.

FINGA FONGA FINGA FONGA MOTHER FAH
<IMG SRC=http://cloominati.250free.com/sig_deserteagle3.gif>

[Doctor Manhattan]

I guess they faked everything about flight 77, including family members who say they lost their loved ones.

thank you for breaking it down in the most simplest of terms.

anyone who gives this even an iota of thought should hand over their genitals. you dont deserve them.



schmega, I was being sarcastic. I will keep my genitals where they are, thank you. I'm getting my balls Botoxed! There're gonna be a smooth as ice!

<a href="Katelyn Faber"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 9-4-04 @ 10:27 PM

[monsterone]

anyone who gives this even an iota of thought should hand over their genitals. you dont deserve them.



is there a genital drop box like the lion's club has for used eye glasses?

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="gray" size="1">do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
</font>

</center>
<font color= "red" size="6">

[curtoid]

The DC plane flew over my apartment building, flying down over 395-North and Columbia Pike, coming in so low at one point it clipped the top of a light pole knocking off a piece of plane that landed near a car that was in a traffic jam around the Pentagon, at the Military gas station on the road between Arlington National Cemetary and Pentagon City Mall (the place where the media set up camp for the next two months because of it's dramatic back drop of the Pentagon) at that time of the morning.

The woman in the car was one of many who saw the whole thing - she took the piece of plane and gave it up. I talked with her, and several others from NY and DC on the one year annivesary of the event, and she may have been a lil' nutty but she wasn't lying.

ANYONE who knows this area knows that it would have been impossible for anything close to that to happen without 10s of thousands of people knowing about. You are talking about (a) one of the most populous areas in the country and (b) with one of the heaviest rush hours DURING rush hour.

where are the pictures of the plane parts from WTC?

REALLY not sure what that is supposed to mean or imply. What happened on 9/11 was a federal crime, and as such any pieces of plane or building from that are treated as part of an on-going federal crime investivation. So, with few exceptions, the FBI has them.

THe most prominant exception is the Smithsonian, who congress appointed as to be the country's official archive, of sorts, for the attack.

Collected were several pieces of planes from NY, and at least one from DC. Because of the relationship between the FBI and the Smithsonian (as a quasi-government organization) the transfer is considered a loan.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/medium/45_273.jpg

More (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/search_record.asp?search=1&location=1&mode=&record=4)




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg


"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 9-4-04 @ 10:48 PM

[furie]

it was a rhetorical statement meant to illustrat that the WTC was destroyed by a commercial liner, but ground zero didn't have the immediate evidence of an aircraft because most of the fuselage was pulverized into confetti.

so to not find wreckage such as the engines or the wings at the pentagon could be because they were destroyed uterly.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[monsterone]

hand over your genitals fellahs, by request of the gay ed geins of the board.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="gray" size="1">do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
</font>

</center>
<font color= "red" size="6">

[curtoid]

it was a rhetorical statement meant to illustrat that the WTC was destroyed by a commercial liner, but ground zero didn't have the immediate evidence of an aircraft because most of the fuselage was pulverized into confetti.

Very true, but things did survive both there and in Pennsylvania - something the govt has not made public because of some stuff they found belonging to the hijackers.

If I put on a defensive tone, I apologize. Like I said, I actually worked with people involved in a plethora of angles from that day - dealings with from a woman who worked at Windows on the Wolrd, to a US spy working at the pentagon, and 77 being brought down was never brought up. That on top of me living 1 mile from the scene, having passed it every day going to and from work, and just knowing the layout of the area.

In 97 i worked for a few months with NTSB, and nothing was more infuriating was hearing the conspiracy theories about what "really" brought flight 800 down.

Common sense should tell people the improbibility of cover up on that scale (100s and 100s of people reaching across multiple juristictions and agencies, not to mention the private sector) should clue them in, but again and again sense is not that common.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/curt4_sig.jpg


"Don't believe everything you read on message boards." - RB

[schmega]

schmega, I was being sarcastic.

yes, i know. you're dispelling this ridiculous theory by your sarcasm. thats what you meant to do, right? thats why i thanked you for breaking it down so simply.

http://gilseed.home.acedsl.com/spsig.jpg

[furie]

In 97 i worked for a few months with NTSB, and nothing was more infuriating was hearing the conspiracy theories about what "really" brought flight 800 down.



tell me about it. I was a Special Agent for the FAA. I hate it when I hear people throw out baseless theories about 800, 587, and the 9-11 flights.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[Doctor Manhattan]

schmega, I was being sarcastic.

yes, i know. you're dispelling this ridiculous theory by your sarcasm. thats what you meant to do, right? thats why i thanked you for breaking it down so simply.

Okay, I just got nervious about the idea of handing over my genitals when you quoted my post.

<a href="Katelyn Faber"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[Legolas]

In 97 i worked for a few months with NTSB, and nothing was more infuriating was hearing the conspiracy theories about what "really" brought flight 800 down.



tell me about it. I was a Special Agent for the FAA. I hate it when I hear people throw out baseless theories about 800, 587, and the 9-11 flights.


First flight 800.

Sorry if you don't like to hear this but as with the pentagoin crash you cannot throw out all of the witness testimony. Witnesses saw something with white smoke, come straight up (l) and then head towards the plane (/) which was moving in theopposite direction. You can't ignore all of these eye witness testimonies. The CIa and FBi videos just don't take what they saw into effect. The people saw the plane (not on fire) and saw the object with white smoke head to the plane and then they saw the plane explode. You just can't ignore that.

The pilot who flew flight 800 from paris to new york the day before, got so fed up with the coverup that he was seeing (he was also helping the ntsb investigate the crash) that took documents relating to the crash and samples from the crash itself and gave them to James sanders. Sanders had the samples tested and to result was that the substance was consistent with rocket fuel. Sanders wrote a book about flight 800 (where he identifies his informant as hangerman), the FBI found out about it, blackmailed sanders friend to gain access to the computer that his book was written on and prosecuted them all. The pilots name was Capt. Terrell Stacey. he later turned on the sanders for a reduced sentence.

Then you have the navy lying about how many submarines they had in the area. At first it was one number then a few months later it was another number and asa the months went on the number of subs increased.

The downing of flight 800 is not some wacky conspiracy theory. It has serious weight. Lots of people are questioning it including admirals, people who had intimate knowledge of the particular plane, pilots. Hell, lawsuits are still going on regarding information being released.

the best site for info about this downing and flight 587

www.twa800.com/index

As for the pentagon attacks certain things don't add up.

Why won't the pentagon release the CCTV footage? Why, when the 5 frames the were released, were they missing a frame, had the wrong date on them and the wrong time? Why did the fbi confiscate the footage from the nearby gas station and the nearby hotel never to release them to the public? Why, in one of the frames from the released cctv (that the defense department denied releasing in the beginning) that supposedly shows the plane before it hits the pentagon, dpict no plane at all. If you look at the frame what you do see is a smoke trail that looks to be coming from an engine. The plane is supposedly hidden behind one of the ticket boxes that's in the frame but a plane that size would not be completely obscured by the box. As far as I know, commercial air plane engines do not leave a thick, white smoke trail behind. Especially at the height the plane was when it hit the pentagon.

Now, just like with flight 800, you cannot ignore all of the witnesses. Everyone said they saw a plane hit the pentagon. There is, however, some disagreement over the size of the plane, but most people say they saw a plane. Fine. The light pole damage supports this claim. There is, however, lots of disagreement over HOW it hit the building. Some people say it went straight in. Straight in. Period. Others say the wing hit the ground first, dragged a little and flew into the pentagon a little crooked. Others say that the plane's wing hit the helicopter pad and then flew into the pentagon. Still others say the plane hit the ground completely and then the wreckage flew into the building. And others say that the wing hit the ground which caused the plane to cartwheel (!!!) into the pentagon. Cartwheel!!! Some say they were so close that they could make out people in the windows and others s

[Legolas]

I didn't add this in my last post.

It's about flight 587 and what people said they saw and what the government said happened.

http://usread.com/flight587/Sharp_Witness/default.html

Why is the government constantly saying to people that you didn't see what you thought you saw especially when a bunch of different people, not connected, see the same thing?

Also, with the recent claiming of repsonsibility for blowing up of flight 587 by al qaida( by a canadian man) doesn't that just shed a little doubt on the official story?? especially when what witnesses say they saw line up with what al qaida says they did.

The NTSB's investigation into flight 587 was shabby.


If doubt is cast on the pentagon crash and the penn. field crash, then don't you have to doubt the whole thing???????????????????

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

This message was edited by Legolas on 9-5-04 @ 2:58 PM

[NewYorkDragons80]

Until the dod releases the footage this is going to go on and on and no one can say definitively what happened.
Until you present an explanation for the 64 people aboard Flight 77, you don't have a stump, let alone a leg, to stand on.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[SatCam]

As per Curtoid's explanation, I assume that this is the reason why no one has seen the survailence tapes.

REALLY not sure what that is supposed to mean or imply. What happened on 9/11 was a federal crime, and as such any pieces of plane or building from that are treated as part of an on-going federal crime investivation. So, with few exceptions, the FBI has them.


As for witness accounts, obviously they are big parts of the truth and the accuracy of history, but witness accounts can be distorted or incorrectly described. The actual science of the situation is what counts. Once a theory is proven wrong with the science, then you can go onto other witness accounts.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[Legolas]

Until the dod releases the footage this is going to go on and on and no one can say definitively what happened.
Until you present an explanation for the 64 people aboard Flight 77, you don't have a stump, let alone a leg, to stand on.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

Nad if I did come up with an explanation wouldn't a be doing what people accuse comspiracy people of doing: making shit up.

All i mentioned above is fact. I have nothing to go on about the where abouts of the people. BUt to ignore everything else, things that contradict the official story and not care about an explanation or worse, to say that nothing contradictory exists, is what a moron would do.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[GodsFavoriteMan]

I'll back up Curtoid. Though I never saw the plane, my sister was driving from home that morning and she lives in Arlington VA, one mile walking distance from the Pentagon. I know this because I used to walk from the Pentagon metro station to my sister's apartment when I worked in DC. My sister saw a plane, not a missle. There's a big damn difference in what they look like. Her boyfriend worked in the Pentagon and was helping find survivors, what he saw was a plane lodged into the building (interestingly enough, he was on the other end of the pentagon--north end, I believe--and never even heard it). Unless of course. . .he and every one of the thousands who worked there were in on it, too.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GodsFavorite.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>

[El Mudo]

Were they sucked into the Maryland triangle?


No....

But Northern Illinois was yesterday....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/elm_sig.gif
<marquee>Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum </marquee>
Thanks Monsterone!!

[Legolas]

I'll back up Curtoid. Though I never saw the plane, my sister was driving from home that morning and she lives in Arlington VA, one mile walking distance from the Pentagon. I know this because I used to walk from the Pentagon metro station to my sister's apartment when I worked in DC. My sister saw a plane, not a missle. There's a big damn difference in what they look like. Her boyfriend worked in the Pentagon and was helping find survivors, what he saw was a plane lodged into the building (interestingly enough, he was on the other end of the pentagon--north end, I believe--and never even heard it). Unless of course. . .he and every one of the thousands who worked there were in on it, too.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GodsFavorite.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>


He said he saw a plane lodged into the building....that certainly doesn't support the official story....certainly no large parts were reported being recovered.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[furie]

The NTSB's investigation into flight 587 was shabby.



you're wrong. i was part of that investigation. we were very thorough. I doubt you or anyone who authored those website has ever conducted an investigation, and until you do, you'll never truly understand.

has everything been said on these crashes? no. but that doesn't mean they were bungled.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[TheMojoPin]

Now, just like with flight 800, you cannot ignore all of the witnesses. Everyone said they saw a plane hit the pentagon.

No, most of them don't. Becuase the plane, despite you continually saying it "hit the Pentagon," crashed into the ground in FRONT of the Pentagon, and exploded INTO it.

Just to back up what Curtoid and GFM have said, I have friends who worked in the Pentagon and in nearby Crystal City and watched the damn plane crash into the ground just in front of the building. My friend Dave saw the plane roar by right outside his office building before it slammed into the ground.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Legolas]

The NTSB's investigation into flight 587 was shabby.



you're wrong. i was part of that investigation. we were very thorough. I doubt you or anyone who authored those website has ever conducted an investigation, and until you do, you'll never truly understand.

has everything been said on these crashes? no. but that doesn't mean they were bungled.



Then you guys are withholding information from the public. That makes you liars. I'd rather be called shabby than a liar.

is there anything that is untrue here?

http://usread.com/flight587/Prelim_Report/Part4.html

http://usread.com/flight587/Prelim_Report/Parts2n3.html



You guys had to have an independent source crticize your work in regards to the toll booth video. That's shabby. Why didn't you guys use the orginal video to draw conclusions rather than have the FBI make you a copy and keep the original?? Why is there still an on going investigation by the FBI? And if there is still an on going FBI investigation and you guys have knowledge that is not being shared (as you put it) then why does the public think the case has been resolved? Are the families aware of this information that is not being shared?? Don't you think they have a right to know??

U.S. Read has been very thorough and as I mentioned, has corrected the NTSB on this crash before.



Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[TheMojoPin]

The government routinely classifies materials used in federal investigations. They've been doing it for over a hundred years. It's standard practice. Some might say they should release those if they have nothing to hide...some might be idiots.

Seriously, what could POSSIBLY be gained by hiding that terrorists blew up the Pentagon with a method other than slamming a passenger jet into it? Or even that the government shot the plane down? There's no logical reason to cover it up.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Mike Teacher]

I tried looking it up but since its a very common word, and a weird letter arrangement I got nothing so can someone tell me: Who or what organization is U.S.Read? That would help a lot. Thanx!

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Legolas]

Now, just like with flight 800, you cannot ignore all of the witnesses. Everyone said they saw a plane hit the pentagon.

No, most of them don't. Becuase the plane, despite you continually saying it "hit the Pentagon," crashed into the ground in FRONT of the Pentagon, and exploded INTO it.

Just to back up what Curtoid and GFM have said, I have friends who worked in the Pentagon and in nearby Crystal City and watched the damn plane crash into the ground just in front of the building. My friend Dave saw the plane roar by right outside his office building before it slammed into the ground.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Sorry Mojo but most of the witness statements say the exact opposite; that the plane didn't hit the ground before it hit the pentagon.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[monsterone]

this flash animation is to promote a book indirectly that gives no conclusive answer as to what hit the pentagon.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="gray" size="1">do you know what "nemesis" means? a righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent.
personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
</font>

</center>
<font color= "red" size="6">

[Yerdaddy]

Problem with conspiracy theories is that they appeal more to passion than to reason. Doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it does make them annoying.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[FUNKMAN]

con ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn) Slang
tr.v. conned, conúning, cons
To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.

n.
A swindle.

adj.
Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist; a con job




spire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr)
n.

A spiral.
A single turn of a spiral; a whorl.
The area farthest from the aperture and nearest the apex on a coiled gastropod shell.



so where am i going with this? not sure

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[Legolas]

The government routinely classifies materials used in federal investigations. They've been doing it for over a hundred years. It's standard practice. Some might say they should release those if they have nothing to hide...some might be idiots.

Some people see contradictions and actually want to investigate, others are too scared too.

Seriously, what could POSSIBLY be gained by hiding that terrorists blew up the Pentagon with a method other than slamming a passenger jet into it? Or even that the government shot the plane down? There's no logical reason to cover it up.

What we've been presented with so far doesn't add up. The people who have the answers aren't talking. Why? Let's say the police walk in on a murder scene. Most of the evidence that they can see points in one direction. But there's this other evidence that contradicts all the rest. While this evidence maybe small, it stands out to you. You are confused. The one guy that can clear things up for you refuses to talk. There's no possible explanation or gain for this guys behavior yet he refuses to talk. If you have a brain, you have to start to suspect him.


The government has plenty of reasons to shoot down a plane and not tell the public. If you can't think of any reason they would want to hide shooting down a commercial plane (even if that plane would have caused serious damage) then you haven't lived in this country long enough.



Mike, here's the link to U.S. Read.

http://usread.com/

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Legolas]

Problem with conspiracy theories is that they appeal more to passion than to reason. Doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it does make them annoying.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

Imagine if everyone in the world started to call a car an apple and an apple a car. Imagine that you are the only one that knows that you ride in a car and you eat an apple. Imagine how crazy you would get. Reason or logic should tell that that there is no way the entire world can just suddenly switch the two around and you are the one that must be crazy. But you know you aren't.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Yerdaddy]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/07/jackson.interview/story.jackson.ap.jpg

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[furie]

http://www.antipas.org/news/world/images/heavens_gate.gif

now you're talking my language.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[Mike Teacher]

Mike, here's the link to U.S. Read.


Cool thanx I went there and the other sites mentioned.

What I am trying to figure out is who they are, exactly; an individual, an organization; do they have any affiliation, what is their history and background. Thats what I can't find.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Legolas]

I think there is a link on the webpage for you to send a letter to the editor.



Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[TheMojoPin]

The government has plenty of reasons to shoot down a plane and not tell the public. If you can't think of any reason they would want to hide shooting down a commercial plane (even if that plane would have caused serious damage) then you haven't lived in this country long enough.

Sorry, but I gotta call complete bullshit on that. Given hindsight and the context of the day, barely anything, IF anything at all, would happen of significance in terms of the government being at fault. Don't you remember that day, when most people were assuming the government/military had shot down not one, but several planes? It would have been the order the day, literally. You're looking too hard for something that has no logical reason to exist, if that truly is your assumption for this faux-coverup.

I'm still waiting for you to give us all legitimate reasons the government would have for covering up either tham shooting down the plane or terrorists attacking the Pentagon with a method other than crashing a passenger jet into it. You can't just automatically jump from theory A to conclusion Z without filling in the letters in between.

Must we re-hash why that kind of thinking doesn't pan out, even if millions of people have been doing it for 40 years?

http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/32257/page/Kennedy_Assasination.htm

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 10:05 AM

[Legolas]

<img width=500 src=http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/will-morris_associated-press.jpg>

Question: Did the plane strike between the first and second floors or the second and third?

This photo was taken by will morris of the Associated Press.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

Please learn to post large pics.

- mikeyboy

This message was edited by mikeyboy on 9-6-04 @ 10:58 AM

[Mike Teacher]

So is U.S.Read a news entity? I'm trying to find the sources of the U.S.Read claims. Is it one person speculating? A team of people? Where the video footage and testimonies come from, aka the source of the data.

I'm taking the science appraoch. If there's a claim, look at the source, find where they got their data, are the claims known, or speculation, or something else, and so on. They have a ton of data; data has sources, and documentation of such. Good data has multiple, independent correlation. Good data is also repeatable in experiements, but that one is out for this one...

=

I'm simply attempting to find out the source of the U.S.Read data and claims, and who they are.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Legolas]

The government has plenty of reasons to shoot down a plane and not tell the public. If you can't think of any reason they would want to hide shooting down a commercial plane (even if that plane would have caused serious damage) then you haven't lived in this country long enough.

Sorry, but I gotta call complete bullshit on that. Given hindsight and the context of the day, barely anything, IF anything at all, would happen of significance in terms of the government being at fault. Don't you remember that day, when most people were assuming the government/military had shot down not one, but several planes? It would have been the order the day, literally. You're looking too hard for something that has no logical reason to exist, if that truly is your assumption for this faux-coverup.

I'm still waiting for you to give us all legitimate reasons the government would have for covering up either tham shooting down the plane or terrorists attacking the Pentagon with a method other than crashing a passenger jet into it. You can't just automatically jump from theory A to conclusion Z without filling in the letters in between.

Must we re-hash why that kind of thinking doesn't pan out, even if millions of people have been doing it for 40 years?

http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/32257/page/Kennedy_Assasination.htm

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 10:05 AM

What does the kennedy killing have to do with this?


You want reasons. It's to early for reasons. Not all of the pieces are together. Again, if I'd given you reasons wouldn't I be guilty of being a conspiracry person that just makes stuff up off the top of my head?

There is a puzzle and not all of the pieces fit. That's what I'm saying. You are saying they do fit, I'm saying they don't given the information that has been made public. And now you want me to give you reasons WHY the pieces don't fit. I can't do that if I don't have all of the information.


Government keeps things secret all the time. Things that if released would probably be no big deal, yet they do it anyway.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Legolas]

So is U.S.Read a news entity? I'm trying to find the sources of the U.S.Read claims. Is it one person speculating? A team of people? Where the video footage and testimonies come from, aka the source of the data.

I'm taking the science appraoch. If there's a claim, look at the source, find where they got their data, are the claims known, or speculation, or something else, and so on. They have a ton of data; data has sources, and documentation of such. Good data has multiple, independent correlation. Good data is also repeatable in experiements, but that one is out for this one...

=

I'm simply attempting to find out the source of the U.S.Read data and claims, and who they are.



No problem. send an e-mail to the editor.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[sighborgh]

God why don't people pay attention? Reasons why they would do this? Ever hear of that ridiculous little "think tank" (yeah that's a laugh) comprised of people like cheney and wolfowitz. these pricks wrote a letter to Clinton in 98 practically begging him to go into Iraq. Why? Because he was a threat? No, he wasn't a threat then anymore than now. $$$$ people! Cheney was of course deep into Halliburton(but of course he's not now, right?) and Wolfowitz is just a maniac who needs to be taken out back. Clinton of course said "no thanks guys, we've got it covered" But I guess Clinton was just being a pussy, right? I don't know what's conclusive about this pentagon deal. I don't think Snopes rebutts anything all that well. I don't believe the plane would have disintigrated. That one piece on the lawn proves nothing. Where's the black box? Any charred remains? If there were no charred remains of the passengers then how did they know who flew the plane? Hmmmm? I guess that's more liberal bullshit then right?
They just wanted as much ammo as they needed to go into Iraq. They were going no matter what and anyone who doesn't see that by now needs to get their head out of their ass or...if they think it's such a great idea, then sign up yourself, get a gun and join the stupidity. What are you, some kind of pussy?!!! Get in there tough guy!!

[TheMojoPin]

Government keeps things secret all the time. Things that if released would probably be no big deal, yet they do it anyway.

Exactly.

That one piece on the lawn proves nothing. Where's the black box? Any charred remains? If there were no charred remains of the passengers then how did they know who flew the plane? Hmmmm?

Nobody is saying EVERYTHING was disintigrated. The bulk of the plane was destroyed not by the crash or the explosion, but the intense heat of the burning jet fuel of a plane fueled to fly across the continental USA, just like the plane wreckage inside the Twin Towers. Parts of the plane were recovered, as were human remains.

And the idea that this "set up" so Bush could invade Iraq is ludicrous. Why in God's name would he have to do that if terrorists REALLY attacked the WTC? What, he needed 200 more people dead to make it "legit?" And if it was to excuse going to war with Iraq, why not say the terrorists were Iraqi? He's not THAT stupid. These theories are so ridiculous it borders on insulting.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 1:38 PM

[sighborgh]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

They were going in people, come hell or high water. Anything else they tell you is a lie. It was a must that W win the last election so they rig Florida. They are getting ready to do it again. The republican slime machine is currently informing certain people they can't vote in Florida. They are former felons who were given their right to vote back. And now they are trying to take it away again, Gee, I wonder why?

[TheMojoPin]

Wait, you're arguing a completely different issue here. We're talking about the specifics of the 9/11 attack. You're saying that we were determined to go into Iraq no matter what. Honestly, I agree on the latter point, but it has zero to do with the specific conversation in this thread. Please try and keep it on track. We have countless other threads about the reasons and motivations behind the Iraq War.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[sighborgh]

And the idea that this "set up" so Bush could invade Iraq is ludicrous. Why in God's name would he have to do that if terrorists REALLY attacked the WTC? What, he needed 200 more people dead to make it "legit?" And if it was to excuse going to war with Iraq, why not say the terrorists were Iraqi? He's not THAT stupid. These theories are so ridiculous it borders on insulting.

I understand you're afraid. You should be. But yes, they needed as much as they could get so they could put this awful plan into play as quickly as possible. I'm sorry you don't believe it. but you will. While he didn't say the terrorists were Iraqi, he said the next best thing. He lied about the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. And then outed Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative when he wouldn't allow them to get away with lying about Saddam's attempt to get uranium from Africa. Yeah, great people they are. I believe that is a breach of national security and treason. Stop it already. I can't help those who can't see what's right in front of their faces. Sad. just sad. Jefferson said to always have a healthy suspicion of government. The right have succesfully turned that good idea into "conspiracy".

Sorry, I replied before seeing your request to keep it on track...but it IS all related isn't it?

This message was edited by sighborgh on 9-6-04 @ 1:51 PM

[TheMojoPin]

So they "trumped up/faked/whatever" the Pentagon attack...but NOT the WTC attack?

Or all four planes are "fakes?"

Bush fudged the truth like crazy to dive into Iraq, but there's nothing pointing to anything with 9/11 giving him a free pass for the invasion. If anything, he and his administration's attempts to try and "patriotically" link the two were met with a ton of criticism, and at best they could say "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same speech. They were never able to come close to conclusively linking the two. It seems absolutely ludicrous that a government would take the massive risk and trouble to be involved or cover up something like 9/11, and then NOT use that manipulated event to their fullest advantage. If they supposedly have this complete information control, and the purpose was to "sell" us invading Iraq, there's ZERO reason for them NOT to have actually created SOME kind of link between 9/11 and Iraq. They didn't. They weren't able to. Christ, nobody's THAT stupid that they wouldn't take advantage of an opportunity like that.

Legolas, you wondered about the JFK assassination comparison? Here's a prime example...already with these "new" conspiracies, you have people willing to give this "shadowy government cabal" ridiculous amounts of power, influence and control...yet they make mind-bogglingly stupid mistakes that seem absurd to the rest of us "little people." Or that like the JFK case, we're somehow supposed to belive these people left little to no traces of their activities, yet ACTUAL massive conspiracies like Watergate and Iran/Contra are exposed while the peope responsible are STILL in power and at the HEIGHT of their control! Watergate IS what happens when these faux-conspiracies come to light. Something that big can't survive unseen for long, ESPECIALLY not in this modern world of media scrutiny. Impossible.

Look, I'm all for criticism and even mistrust of the government...but at some point, paranoia takes over, and you end up being just as ineffectual as those you claim "aren't seeing the truth."

I understand you're afraid. You should be.

Please don't patronize me like that.

I used to buy into every conspiracy under the sun. "The Machine" was always at work. Then I actually became part of the "The Machine," worked for "The Man," and quickly realized "The Machine" is populated with idiots like "The Man" all the way up to the top.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 2:11 PM

[sighborgh]

I see I'm getting nowhere but that's okay. I don't believe in every conspiracy though I do like to hear them. I don't know what they faked or didn't but to think they wouldn't take a chance on being involved in a massive cover up, c'mon! are you serious? That's what governments do. That's what trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 is ALL about! Covering up the fact that they were Saudis on those planes.

[TheMojoPin]

But...we knew who the terrorists were and where they were from within days of the attacks.

So the coverup...failed?

I'm really confused, solely because you're all over the place. They wanted to hide that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian...but we found out. They wanted to use 9/11 as the foolproof reason for invading Iraq...but they couldn't. So this conspiracy and those involved...suck? And again, are you saying we covered up the details of the WHOLE attack? Or just the attack on the Pentagon? And at times you've implied Bush and co. may have, what, caused this to happen? Helped it to happen? Knew it was going to happen? You've been very vague.

Another running them I noticed in all my years of JFK research...ask a conspiracy buff the specific "why's" and "how's" of their theories and it usually stops things dead.

I don't know what they faked or didn't but to think they wouldn't take a chance on being involved in a massive cover up, c'mon! are you serious?

Like that. Basically, if it COULD happen, it DID happen. Provability and evidence be damned.

And the main question here, again, is "why?" All the answers I've gotten either mean the coverup failed miserably, or made zero sense whatsoever.

I'm not saying it COULDN'T have happened. I'm saying it's most likely it DIDN'T happen. And until somebody proves otherwise, I have nothing but what amounts to heresay and gossip to counter it.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 2:25 PM

[mikeyboy]

This is starting to remind me of another thread. (http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/32257/page/Kennedy_Assasination.htm)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)

[TheMojoPin]

Shocking, isn't it?

I'm just a CIA plant! YOU ALL SAW NOTHING!

*POOF*

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[sighborgh]

well no, I didn't imply most of what you said but whatever...In this case you almost have to be all over the place because it is all related. what I don't like is the idea that people think coverups and conspiracies don't exist and people just write it off. To me, THAT is putting your head in the sand. what, now governments don't lie? yeah okay I made a mistake, we knew they were saudi after awhile. oops. Anyway, the whys are the important things that were covered up. The exact whos aren't. They're just pawns like us. sorry you don't believe what I believe but nobody is going to come right out and tell you especially when the reasons are as dirty as these are. You have draw conclusions on your own. And these are disgustingly obvious.

[mikeyboy]

And these are disgustingly obvious.


That's a little bit of an overstatement.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)

[TheMojoPin]

well no, I didn't imply most of what you said but whatever...

Then what ARE you implying? Again, I simply am completely lost as to what you're presenting. You're explaining nothing and insinuating everything.

In this case you almost have to be all over the place because it is all related.

How so? If it's all related, then please point me in the right direction. It should be easy.

what I don't like is the idea that people think coverups and conspiracies don't exist

Nobody did any such thing. In fact, I gave two examples of ACTUAL large scale government conspiracies that went right to the top.

and people just write it off. To me, THAT is putting your head in the sand. what, now governments don't lie? yeah okay I made a mistake, we knew they were saudi after awhile. oops.

Fair enough.

Anyway, the whys are the important things that were covered up. The exact whos aren't. They're just pawns like us.

And THERE's the caveat. "Why" can't be explained? Why not? Because it's "covered up." The "who's"...ie - the details? Hey, don't sweat it...this is starting to sound like Donald Sutherland from "JFK"...

You have to view these things like a criminal investigation. The police (usually) can't just pin any crime they want on anyone they want. It's a drawn-out process that requires investigation and gathering of evidence. Cases need to be made. You can't just say, "I think that guy COULD have done it because he blah-blah-blah." How do you PROVE that guy did it?

sorry you don't believe what I believe but nobody is going to come right out and tell you especially when the reasons are as dirty as these are.

No offense, but that's a GIANT cop-out. And there's really nothing for me to "believe" since you've you really told us nothing except a few hints towards what you MIGHT think is a theory.

You have draw conclusions on your own. And these are disgustingly obvious.

See what I just wrote above. You CAN'T tell us what you think you know, or you WON'T tell us what you think you know? Either way is highly questionable, to say the least.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-6-04 @ 3:30 PM

[ChickenHawk]

<IMG SRC="http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/storyofricky/part2/31.gif">

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

[Legolas]

I'm really confused, solely because you're all over the place. They wanted to hide that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian...but we found out. They wanted to use 9/11 as the foolproof reason for invading Iraq...but they couldn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have to recant some of the hijackers because they turned up alive and well. Their identities were hijacked. At least 7 of the "hijackers" are still alive. So how did we id them in the first place??? Where did their pictures come from?? And if these pictures were shown to the flights schools for id and these guys are still alive then.....????????

How exactly did we id these guys?????


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


Of course they used 9/11 for a fullproof reason for invading Iraq. Want proof? Turn on your t.v. and tell me which country our troops are dying in. We went to Iraq. America swallowed the b.s. story. It worked (iuf that was there intention).

...ask a conspiracy buff the specific "why's" and "how's" of their theories and it usually stops things dead.

If the "why" and the "how" were known then it wouldn't be a conspiracy, would it? That fact is that certain things don't add up especially with the pentagon attacks. The 5 frames that were "released" (dod claimed not to have released them) that suppossedly show the plane about to hit the pentagon are either false or the official story is false. The plane should be visable in the photo when it is not. all you see is something that looks like a tale fin sticking out from behind the ticket box and a long line of white smoke behind it. The plane should be visible.


I'm not saying it COULDN'T have happened. I'm saying it's most likely it DIDN'T happen. And until somebody proves otherwise, I have nothing but what amounts to heresay and gossip to counter it.


You have no problem with heresay and gossip when it comes from the media or even witnesses.





Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[sighborgh]

Okay forget everything I've said even though you think I've said nothing anyway. Do you really believe that these are honorable men with honorable intentions?
They were going in. This is fact.
They needed to win 2000 to be able to do this. You will scream conspiracy but just look at it. Florida ended up being the key And they found a way around counting the votes. Fact.
No bid contracts for Cheney's buddies. this is fact.
Bush himself was shown documents with the heading Bin Laden Plans to strike in US-he ignored them. This is fact. Wouldn't that make someone think a minute as to why?
They outed a CIA operative when her husband publicly showed they lied when they tried to make the case for WMD's that they knew did not exist-this is fact.

I really don't know what more you need? Have I still said nothing now? To me yes, this is disgustingly obvious, I don't know why there are still some people who don't see it that way.

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.02brothers.com/cuckoo/cuckoo.gif

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Legolas]

I wonder if Operation Northwoods had been carried out would we be having this very same discussion about "why would the government do this" or "how they pulled it off"

"Operation Northwoods was a document drafted in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (and possibly President John F. Kennedy himself) on March 13, 1962. Long believed to be residing in the imagination of conspiracy theorists, the document was declassified in recent years by the Freedom of Information Act."

"The document was drafted with the intent of getting public support for an invasion of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the US population would only support military intervention in Cuba in the event of provocative, aggressive action by the island nation against American soldiers, American civilians or Cuban refugees and Cubans in exile. The document frequently refers to staging fake attacks with fake victims, but in other cases does not specify whether the attacks should be fake or real, and for some recommended attacks explicitly notes that they could be real. Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, it would likely have required the coordinative efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is mentioned several times."

Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods were:

Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces
Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document refers to unmanned drones, fake funerals etc.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday" (really an unmanned drone)
Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[jocefus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have to recant some of the hijackers because they turned up alive and well. Their identities were hijacked. At least 7 of the "hijackers" are still alive. So how did we id them in the first place??? Where did their pictures come from?? And if these pictures were shown to the flights schools for id and these guys are still alive then.....????????

airport cameras in the terminal just before you board the plane...


i highly doubt that the gov shot down the plane that hit the pentagon.. if any plane was shot down on 9/11 it was the one that crashed in pa..

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jocefus



Big ups to amy, aggie, satcam,adf and fluff for the sigs..

hey my man, what it look like

[Legolas]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have to recant some of the hijackers because they turned up alive and well. Their identities were hijacked. At least 7 of the "hijackers" are still alive. So how did we id them in the first place??? Where did their pictures come from?? And if these pictures were shown to the flights schools for id and these guys are still alive then.....????????

airport cameras in the terminal just before you board the plane...


i highly doubt that the gov shot down the plane that hit the pentagon.. if any plane was shot down on 9/11 it was the one that crashed in pa..

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jocefus



Big ups to amy, aggie, satcam,adf and fluff for the sigs..

hey my man, what it look like


They didn't identify them all by using the security cameras. That's obvious or we would know who they all are. But that only covers a small portion of my orginal question

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[SatCam]

The government has plenty of reasons to shoot down a plane and not tell the public. If you can't think of any reason they would want to hide shooting down a commercial plane (even if that plane would have caused serious damage) then you haven't lived in this country long enough.

Hahaha... just as an apple could've became lodged in the engine, some evil guy with a huge remote control plane crashed it into the pentagon... the theories are endless. I have no idea why you would consider the government-involved theory to be valid.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[ChickenHawk]

They needed to win 2000 to be able to do this. You will scream conspiracy but just look at it. Florida ended up being the key And they found a way around counting the votes. Fact.
No bid contracts for Cheney's buddies. this is fact.
Bush himself was shown documents with the heading Bin Laden Plans to strike in US-he ignored them. This is fact. Wouldn't that make someone think a minute as to why?
They outed a CIA operative when her husband publicly showed they lied when they tried to make the case for WMD's that they knew did not exist-this is fact.
I think you may be confused. Let me help you out...

fact - pronunciation of "fact" ( P ) f<IMG SRC="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gif">kt
n.

1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
2) a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=ChickenHawk">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>[color=white]

This message was edited by ChickenHawk on 9-6-04 @ 8:50 PM

[TheMojoPin]

I'm really confused, solely because you're all over the place. They wanted to hide that the terrorists were Saudi Arabian...but we found out. They wanted to use 9/11 as the foolproof reason for invading Iraq...but they couldn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have to recant some of the hijackers because they turned up alive and well. Their identities were hijacked. At least 7 of the "hijackers" are still alive. So how did we id them in the first place??? Where did their pictures come from?? And if these pictures were shown to the flights schools for id and these guys are still alive then.....????????

How exactly did we id these guys?????


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm[/quote]

Like it was said, all of these guys are on security cameras boarding planes. We also have the ticket records. They are all men with terrorist pasts and connections to Al-Queda. Key men were known after the fact to have been trained in flying a plane. All of these men are now dead.

Of course they used 9/11 for a fullproof reason for invading Iraq. Want proof? Turn on your t.v. and tell me which country our troops are dying in. We went to Iraq. America swallowed the b.s. story. It worked (iuf that was there intention).

This is such a HUGE leap in logic. I've ranted for over a year now how Bush and co. very purposefully used the inferrence of 9/11 to help support the idea of war with Iraq. But that's still MILES from them blatantly using it as an actually REASON to invade Iraq. AGAIN, if the government is going to manipulate the facts of 9/11 to back the war in Iraq, then why the hell did they do such a half-assed job in selling that idea. They never once said, "we are invading Iraq because of 9/11." If they're going to go to the trouble of supposedly skewing the facts to back this war, why'd they do such a piss-poor job of selling the war as a happening of 9/11?!?

...ask a conspiracy buff the specific "why's" and "how's" of their theories and it usually stops things dead.

If the "why" and the "how" were known then it wouldn't be a conspiracy, would it?[/quote]

You must not know what a conspiracy is.

Main Entry: conúspirúaúcy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

Nowhere has a conspiracy ever meant that one is not aware of everything that's going on. What you're describing above is a "mystery."

That fact is that certain things don't add up especially with the pentagon attacks. The 5 frames that were "released" (dod claimed not to have released them) that suppossedly show the plane about to hit the pentagon are either false or the official story is false. The plane should be visable in the photo when it is not. all you see is something that looks like a tale fin sticking out from behind the ticket box and a long line of white smoke behind it. The plane should be visible.

Why? All of the perspectives I've seen of the building's crash site in photos, film and in person match with the "official" story. The plane hit the ground and exploded into the Pentagon. The extreme heat caused by the massive amounts of jet fuel torched most of the plane...JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN NYC.

I'm not saying it COULDN'T have happened. I'm saying it's most likely it DIDN'T happen. And until somebody proves otherwise, I have nothing but what amounts to heresay and gossip to counter it.


You have no problem with heresay and gossip when it comes from the media or even witnesses.[/quote]

Ah, so now "the media" is part of it, right? Man, JFK just keeps going and going and going...this all sounds so very familiar.

And how is what an eyewitness SAW heresay or gossip? It's what an EYEwitness SAW.

And again, please calrify what YOUR stance is...did the US blow up the

[Mike Teacher]

I'm just really happy that so many people are enriching their word power by looking up things in the dictionary. :)

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Yerdaddy]

Main Entry: sarúcasm
Pronunciation: 's„r-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Legolas]

Like it was said, all of these guys are on security cameras boarding planes. We also have the ticket records. They are all men with terrorist pasts and connections to Al-Queda. Key men were known after the fact to have been trained in flying a plane. All of these men are now dead.

Yes but we still don't know the identity of 7 of the 19 guys?? You say they all have connections to al qaida but how do we know that (at least for 7 of them) if we don't know their name????

Of course they used 9/11 for a fullproof reason for invading Iraq. Want proof? Turn on your t.v. and tell me which country our troops are dying in. We went to Iraq. America swallowed the b.s. story. It worked (iuf that was there intention).

This is such a HUGE leap in logic. I've ranted for over a year now how Bush and co. very purposefully used the inferrence of 9/11 to help support the idea of war with Iraq. But that's still MILES from them blatantly using it as an actually REASON to invade Iraq. AGAIN, if the government is going to manipulate the facts of 9/11 to back the war in Iraq, then why the hell did they do such a half-assed job in selling that idea. They never once said, "we are invading Iraq because of 9/11." If they're going to go to the trouble of supposedly skewing the facts to back this war, why'd they do such a piss-poor job of selling the war as a happening of 9/11?!?

Don't confuse me with the other guy that was argung here. My orginal position is not witht he iraq invasion. BUt, of course we used 9/1 as an excuse. By the time the countdown had started over half the people in this country were saying "these are the guys that attacked us on 9/11". Bush even spoon fed us the idea that there were ties between al Q and saddam.

Have you seen the recent pole?? Half of the people in nyc think that the governemnt knew about 9/11 and consciously let it happen. That's a huge thing.

That fact is that certain things don't add up especially with the pentagon attacks. The 5 frames that were "released" (dod claimed not to have released them) that suppossedly show the plane about to hit the pentagon are either false or the official story is false. The plane should be visable in the photo when it is not. all you see is something that looks like a tale fin sticking out from behind the ticket box and a long line of white smoke behind it. The plane should be visible.

Why? All of the perspectives I've seen of the building's crash site in photos, film and in person match with the "official" story. The plane hit the ground and exploded into the Pentagon. The extreme heat caused by the massive amounts of jet fuel torched most of the plane...JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN NYC.

Then you haven't been looking at the right photos or you've ignored what you have saw. The photos do not support that a plane hit the ground and then hit the pentagon. the witness statements don't either. One guy went so far as to say that the plane DIDN'T hit the ground first.

How do you know that the flames melted the plane at the WTC?? What made the building collapse was the heat weakening the steel columns not melting them.

I'm not saying it COULDN'T have happened. I'm saying it's most likely it DIDN'T happen. And until somebody proves otherwise, I have nothing but what amounts to heresay and gossip to counter it.


Ah, so now "the media" is part of it, right? Man, JFK just keeps going and going and going...this all sounds so very familiar.

And how is what an eyewitness SAW heresay or gossip? It's what an EYEwitness SAW.


Stop reading something that I didn't type. I didn't say the media was "in on it" And please get of the jfk thing already.

I metioned the media because what they say is heresay/gossip. You are getting information second and third hand when you listen to them yet most people don't think to question what comes out of the t.v.

[quote]And again, please calrify what YOUR stance is...did the U

[Yerdaddy]

To say that everything fits is a slap in the face to the families who are actually asking questions and to regular people who have looked at the evidence and have said things don't add up
Don't do that. I read your case for... I don't even know what you're trying to prove. It's an awful mismash of half-ass theories pieced together with questionable sources. The witness testimonies don't match? When do they ever? We don't know the names of the hijackers? They used their real names! "I metioned the media because what they say is heresay/gossip."??? You're using Google!

Whatever you're trying to prove, don't try to rationalize it by invoking the families to your cause. That's wrong.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Mike Teacher]

Well, thats exactly what i'm trying to find out about the claims on U.S.Read. Are they an organization with well-examined data, or a guy speculating from a computer, or something in between.

I'm looking for outside sources for U.S.Read, and so far nada. Not say the site is fake; I'm trying to find out the sources of the claims made on such. Who were the eyewitnesses and where is the original testimony taken from; stuff like that.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[TheMojoPin]

Yes but we still don't know the identity of 7 of the 19 guys?? You say they all have connections to al qaida but how do we know that (at least for 7 of them) if we don't know their name????

Alright, I have no clue why you're still pushing this. WE KNOW WHO THEY ALL ARE FROM THE TICKET RECORDS ALONE! They used their real names! Those identities were then matched with the men seen on the security films!

Have you seen the recent pole?? Half of the people in nyc think that the governemnt knew about 9/11 and consciously let it happen. That's a huge thing.

Almost half of the Arab world thinks Israel was behind 9/11 based on recent polls. Hell, most of America thinks a conspiracy killed JFK based on polls that were taken within a month of his death, right up until today. What the HELL does public opinion have to do with actually PROVING something? Not a damn thing. If a poll came out where most people said they thought the sky was orange, hey, guess what? It would still be blue tomorrow.

How do you know that the flames melted the plane at the WTC?? What made the building collapse was the heat weakening the steel columns not melting them.

It's simple science, really. The amount of heat caused by that amount of burning jet fuel flaming jet fuel would destroy a plane. That was known well before 9/11. And what do the steel columns have to do with the planes? The planes aren't made of steel columns. The effect on of the fire on the exploded planes and the steel columns of the building are two completely different things.

I metioned the media because what they say is heresay/gossip. You are getting information second and third hand when you listen to them yet most people don't think to question what comes out of the t.v.

Is the news correct 100% of the time? Of course not. But they at least make an attempt to get the story at least mostly right. Even if it's just so they don't get sued they fact-check and have to back up their stories with sources, experts, evidence and witnesses. The site this thread was started over doesn't do any of that, and has no obligation to do so. It's the web page equivalent of an editorial, not a news story.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Legolas]

Don't do that. I read your case for... I don't even know what you're trying to prove. It's an awful mismash of half-ass theories pieced together with questionable sources. The witness testimonies don't match? When do they ever? We don't know the names of the hijackers? They used their real names! "I metioned the media because what they say is heresay/gossip."??? You're using Google!

Whatever you're trying to prove, don't try to rationalize it by invoking the families to your cause. That's wrong.


I think I will do that.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I've said that things don't add up. They don't. I've explained why they don't add up. Nothing I've posted is a mismash of half assed theories. I haven't given you any theories. It's what I've avoided doing in these conversations. Please go back and read and try to keep up.

When do witness statements match up?? Let's see. They match up on flight 800, they match up on flight 587, they macth up on the WTC and they match up on flight 93. They don't macth up on flight 77. They only thing they do match up on is that a plane like object...... and then that's it. What happened to that plane like object does not match up. They disagree on what happened to it. Why?? Either the [plane hit the ground and then hit the building or it flew straight into the building. How can there be disagree ment on that simple thing. Imagine if people came out and sawid that they saw the plane that hit the WTC hit another building first and then hit the tower. That's a hugh difference!!! A plane cartwheeling after hitting the ground and then flying into the pentagon is a huge difference, pal. Huge.

the heresay and gossip thing is something mojo started by saying that's what my sources amounted to. I pointed out that what the media tells us is heresay and gossip. Hell quoting what witnesses say is heresay and gossip. When in a courtroom you can't get up on the stand and say "bob witnessed the whole thing and he said....." You have to have bob come up on the stand and say what he saw or have bob's statement sworn in.

Keep up with the convo.


I mentioned the families of 9/11 because they are NOT satisfied withthe official story either. they still have questions that are unanswered. In fact some want another investigation into 9/11 and for good reason. The 9/11 commission failed to answer/deal with some important questions. By saying i'm crazy for questioning the official story you are saying that these people are crazy too.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Yerdaddy]

OK, pretend to speak for the families if you want. Nobody in their right minds will belive that you do. But don't call me Pal. Pal.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Legolas]

Alright, I have no clue why you're still pushing this. WE KNOW WHO THEY ALL ARE FROM THE TICKET RECORDS ALONE! They used their real names! Those identities were then matched with the men seen on the security films!

The man seen here:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/11.htm

known as Waleed M. Alshehri is still alive. shortly after 9/11 he came forward, from morocco, upset that his picture was being as one of the terrorist. Why does the fbi still have his picture up???? Did you go to the bbc website that I quoted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm



He's not the only one.



The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

Mistaken identity


Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.


Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver'
He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.







Almost half of the Arab world thinks Israel was behind 9/11 based on recent polls. Hell, most of America thinks a conspiracy killed JFK based on polls that were taken within a month of his death, right up until today. What the HELL does public opinion have to do with actually PROVING something? Not a damn thing. If a poll came out where most people said they thought the sky was orange, hey, guess what? It would still be blue tomorrow.

It shows that if I am crazy for questioning the official story then so are most americans.

Have you actually been to anywhere that I have quoted?? Have you seen the 5 frames of video from the secutiry camera? Have you seen pictures of the pentagon lawn and helicopter area. PLease show me where the plane struck. Please. You would expect to see some serious marks on the lawn right?? Show them to me since you have investigated this for yourself and all.



It's simple science, really. The amount of heat caused by that amount of burning jet fuel flaming jet fuel would destroy a plane. That was known well before 9/11. And what do the steel columns have to do with the planes? The planes aren't made of steel columns. The effect on of the fire on the exploded planes and the steel columns of the building are two completely different things.

Hahahaha. You can't have it both ways mojo. Either pieces of the plane were discovered or there wasn't. Either your friend saw a piece of the plane lodged in the building or he didn't (i think that was you that said that). Either the fire was so intense that it destroyed the plane or it didn't. Which is it??? Did they also discover bodies parts in this falme that was so hot it destroyed the plane???

[quote]

Is the news correct 100% of the time? Of course not. But they at least make an attempt to get the story at least mostly right. Even if it's just so they don't get sued they fact-check and have to back up their stories with sources, experts, evidence and witnesses. The site this thread was started over doesn'

[Legolas]

OK, pretend to speak for the families if you want. Nobody in their right minds will belive that you do. But don't call me Pal. Pal.




Listen, pal, no one is speaking for the families.

Stop being an idiot an actually read what I post instead of trying to read between the lines. Read what's there and not what you think is there.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[TheMojoPin]

Alright, I have no clue why you're still pushing this. WE KNOW WHO THEY ALL ARE FROM THE TICKET RECORDS ALONE! They used their real names! Those identities were then matched with the men seen on the security films!

The man seen here:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/11.htm

known as Waleed M. Alshehri is still alive. shortly after 9/11 he came forward, from morocco, upset that his picture was being as one of the terrorist. Why does the fbi still have his picture up???? Did you go to the bbc website that I quoted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm[/quote]

So you have one news story from three years ago? There's no follow up you can produce? Nothing since then that verifies this error?

Why is there no follow up on the BBC's site to this signifcant development, if it were accurate? If you plug in "Waleed Al Shehri" into the BBC search engine, all you get is one other story, from this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3919613.stm

It's a story on a series of passages from the 9/11 Cpmmission's report. There's no commentary from the BBC about these two men being alive.

Oh, my, could it because that the man in your article is Waleed A. al-Shehri, not Waleed M. al-Shehri, the man involved in the attack? Hmm, mistaken identity of the highjackers within two weeks of the attack that was cleared up long ago. Great investigative work.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Waleed%20al-Shehri

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Waleed_al-Shehri

http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/Waleed_Al-Shehri



He's not the only one.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

See the links above. It's two different guys with similar names.

Mistaken identity


Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.


Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver'
He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another case of two men with the same name, one using the other's stolen passport.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Abdulaziz%20Al%20Omari

You said there were four. You named two. But here's a third case of "mistaken mistaken identity," just for the heck of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar

Almost half of the Arab world thinks Israel was behind 9/11 based on recent polls. Hell, most of America thinks a conspiracy killed JFK based on polls that were taken within a month of his death, right up until today. What the HELL does public opinion have to do with actually PROVING something? Not a damn thing. If a poll came out where most people said they thought the sky was orange, hey, guess what? It would still be blue tomorrow.

It shows that if I am crazy for questioning the official story then so are most americans.[/quote]

Nowhere did I say you were crazy. My point is that opinion po

[mikeyboy]

OK, pretend to speak for the families if you want. Nobody in their right minds will belive that you do. But don't call me Pal. Pal.




Listen, pal, no one is speaking for the families.

Stop being an idiot an actually read what I post instead of trying to read between the lines. Read what's there and not what you think is there.





I mentioned the families of 9/11 because they are NOT satisfied withthe official story either. they still have questions that are unanswered. In fact some want another investigation into 9/11 and for good reason.





Also, this is supposed to be a forum for civil discussion. Cut the name calling, Legolas.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)

[SatCam]

When do witness statements match up?? Let's see. They match up on flight 800, they match up on flight 587, they macth up on the WTC and they match up on flight 93. They don't macth up on flight 77.

Wait, you're going on the theory that ONLY Flight 77 was a mock-up? You're not even going towards the missle theory? Why the hell, within an hour of the planes crashing into the WTC, would the US government quickly setup a fake flight that would crash right into the pentagon?

This has been said many times throughout this thread and this logic makes no sense AT ALL.

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[TheMojoPin]

Or that the flight was real, but that the government wants to cover up that they shot down the plane just before it hit with a missile.

Or that it was actually a terrorist attack, but with something other than a plane.

Then what happened to the plane that at LEAST hundreds of people saw flying low and not over the Potomac that day? Trust me, that's something that would get noticed...planes flying into National MUST remain over the Potomac, keeping the skies above DC clear. Seeing a plane anywhere besides over the river, AND flying freakishly low, is something people would and id notice en masse.

So you have to have the plane involved.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[SatCam]

Or that it was actually a terrorist attack, but with something other than a plane.

Then that would explain the missing plane, the plane manifests, and the families that he mentions that "do not believe what the government is telling them"?

<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[BoondockSaint]

I always wondered what happened to Spaz after he left O&A. Now I know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/squrl/piazzazakk.jpg
M1 is the shit!

[Legolas]

When do witness statements match up?? Let's see. They match up on flight 800, they match up on flight 587, they macth up on the WTC and they match up on flight 93. They don't macth up on flight 77.

Wait, you're going on the theory that ONLY Flight 77 was a mock-up? You're not even going towards the missle theory? Why the hell, within an hour of the planes crashing into the WTC, would the US government quickly setup a fake flight that would crash right into the pentagon?

This has been said many times throughout this thread and this logic makes no sense AT ALL.



Jesus. Pay attention. I've gone with no theory that flight 77 was a mock up. Where have i said this. Show me so I can correct myself.

I've posed no theory at all. What I am saying is that from what has been released, things don't add up. When have I ever given you a theory that flight 77 was a mock, or remote controlled, or a missile or anything else? You say it has been said many times in this thread. When??

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Legolas]

Or that the flight was real, but that the government wants to cover up that they shot down the plane just before it hit with a missile.

Or that it was actually a terrorist attack, but with something other than a plane.

Then what happened to the plane that at LEAST hundreds of people saw flying low and not over the Potomac that day? Trust me, that's something that would get noticed...planes flying into National MUST remain over the Potomac, keeping the skies above DC clear. Seeing a plane anywhere besides over the river, AND flying freakishly low, is something people would and id notice en masse.

So you have to have the plane involved.



You are the one that keeps coming up with theories. I've given you none of the theories that you posted above. None. Why are you assuming i;ve said something that i haven't???


As for what the witnesses saw only about 10 of them reported seeing another plane in the area flying suspiciously. No one else say they saw this plane. That didn't mean that it wasn't there. It turned out to be a c-130 that watched the whole thing. No one took these people seriously until the info was released by the air national guard.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[SatCam]

They match up on flight 800, they match up on flight 587, they macth up on the WTC and they match up on flight 93. They don't macth up on flight 77.


<marquee>Beware, this is a scrolling marquee. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿThis Marquee scrolls. WATCH OUT! ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿWatch your ass for the scrolling marquee!!!!</marquee>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/mariosig.jpg" align="right" alt="Still taking a shit" /><a href="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</a>

50%[color=white]

[reeshy]

Or that the flight was real, but that the government wants to cover up that they shot down the plane just before it hit with a missile.


If the government did shoot the plane down with a missile...That's almost Prima Facie evidence that they knew that an attack was going to happen and know exactly what time and flight it was happening on...If they didn't have any prior knowledge of an attack...then it is my opinion that they wouldn't shoot down the plane since it would be assumed that it was a hijacking!!!!! I don't know...just my stupid opinion!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

[FUNKMAN]

somebody saw it!
http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/tattoo/fi01.jpg

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[Legolas]

So you have one news story from three years ago? There's no follow up you can produce? Nothing since then that verifies this error?

Why is there no follow up on the BBC's site to this signifcant development, if it were accurate?

That's a good question. No other new source, beside the telegraph reported this. It's a question you should pose to cnn, msnbc, fox and others.




Oh, my, could it because that the man in your article is Waleed A. al-Shehri, not Waleed M. al-Shehri, the man involved in the attack? Hmm, mistaken identity of the highjackers within two weeks of the attack that was cleared up long ago. Great investigative work.

Then why is his picture still up on the fbi website??? They put this guys face on the news, he saw it and complained. It was his face, but he's not dead so then why don't they just put a big question mark over the pic of waleed m. al-shehri instead of keeping waleed a. al shehri's pic up??




Nowhere did I say you were crazy. My point is that opinion polls reflect OPINIONS. Opinions don't make something true. Millions of people think Santa Clause exists. Their DESIRE for that to be true doesn't make it true. Get it? An opinion poll will not help EITHER of us here.

Yes but there is feeling that anyone who questions the official story of that day are crazy conspiracy people. My point is that if that's true then the crazy conspiracy people out number the people who accept the official story. The stigma that's placed on people who question the official version is what I dont like.





Yes, I've seen the five frames. Since it's apparently too difficult for you to show us a little bit of evidence, I'll do it for you...

These aren't the original images released. They are the croped version. The original version that was "leaked" included the incorrect date and time stamp. There is also a frame missing from the 5 frames and 2 frames that were taken at the exact same second yet show different images.

you can find the uncropped pictures here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html

17:37:19 shows "plane"
17:37:19 shows impact
17:37:21 shows impact2
17:37:22 shows impact3
17:37:23 shows impact4

There are other questions surrounding what is shown. you can find some of those arguments in the link I provided.

A plane the size of flight 77 can not be hiding behind the ticket dispenser. It is too large. You would see more of it



What about the pictures of the lawn. Have you seen those. Can you point out any damage to the lawn that matches up with
Voila. Look, I can't force you to see what I see. I see the plane basically hitting the ground in the first image (partially behind the white/tan box-dealie), then exploding into the Pentagon over the next four frames. I've been to my share of munitions and explosives demonstrations, and the explosion is exactly what happens during an explosion fueled by a huge amount of fuel or gasoline. That is NOT an explosion from a missile or a car bomb.




Nowhere did I say the fire left no trace of the plane (And I didn't say I knew anyone who saw a plane part stuck in the building). I've consistently said the fire destroyed "most/much" of the plane for a reason...that's what it did. It did NOT atomize the plane, and nobody is claiming that it did.

Someone on here said that they had a friend that worked there and saw part of the plane. I wasn't sure if it was you (I think i said so).

I also have problems with the size of the impact hole and location or lact thereof of any large pieces of the plane being recovered. I know they recovered something that looks like part of an engine but it has not been identified.


Also, look at the overhead photos. A missile or car bomb would not cause the physical damage to the structure of the building as far as crashing plane went. It's that simple.

No one mentioned a missile or a car bomb or any of that. I didn't. Maybe the or

[Legolas]

OK, pretend to speak for the families if you want. Nobody in their right minds will belive that you do. But don't call me Pal. Pal.




Listen, pal, no one is speaking for the families.

Stop being an idiot an actually read what I post instead of trying to read between the lines. Read what's there and not what you think is there.





I mentioned the families of 9/11 because they are NOT satisfied withthe official story either. they still have questions that are unanswered. In fact some want another investigation into 9/11 and for good reason.





Also, this is supposed to be a forum for civil discussion. Cut the name calling, Legolas.



i get it, no name calling. But why all of the quotes above??

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[NewYorkDragons80]

What about the plane disappearing from the radar screen.
[Gasp] Do you know anything about general aviation? Radar only picks up from a certain height. Most sneak attacks fly low for most of their mission to *evade* radar detection. It disappeared from radar because it was too low. For more on radar systems and how they relate to military aviation, consult your local library.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/EDUCATION/05/29/reading.rainbow.ap/story.reading.rainbow.ap.jpg

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[mikeyboy]

i get it, no name calling. But why all of the quotes above??


Because I was pointing out that you were speaking for the 9/11 victim's families in stating that they are not satisfied with the story. There may be an element from that group that question the story, but in no way can you make the blanket statement that they, as a group, question the story.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)

[Legolas]

i get it, no name calling. But why all of the quotes above??


Because I was pointing out that you were speaking for the 9/11 victim's families in stating that they are not satisfied with the story. There may be an element from that group that question the story, but in no way can you make the blanket statement that they, as a group, question the story.



but I didn't. if you took away from my statement that i implied that all 9/11 victim families don't by the official story then you and others implied wrong.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[mikeyboy]

If you don't want people to imply anything besides what you mean, be more clear in what you say and don't use generalizations. You said absolutely nothing to qualify your statements.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on radiobbq, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.live365.com/stations/radiobbq)


This message was edited by mikeyboy on 9-7-04 @ 8:03 PM

[furie]

What about the plane disappearing from the radar screen.
[Gasp] Do you know anything about general aviation? Radar only picks up from a certain height. Most sneak attacks fly low for most of their mission to *evade* radar detection. It disappeared from radar because it was too low. For more on radar systems and how they relate to military aviation, consult your local library.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/EDUCATION/05/29/reading.rainbow.ap/story.reading.rainbow.ap.jpg

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>


actually it's a misconception that planes are tracked by radar the whole time they're in the sky. the FAA-ATC relies on telemetry from the air craft. turn off the telemetry and the plane is virtually invisible to civil aviation until it enters a radar cone; usually on approach to an airport and such.


<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/furie1335/.Pictures/rfsigs/FuturamaRush.jpg">
<marquee>"All right! It's Saturday night, I have no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta and my all Rush mix tape, let's rock!"
</marquee>
<a href="http://fallingtowardsapotheosis.blogspot.com/">mental vomit</a>

[Legolas]

[Gasp] Do you know anything about general aviation? Radar only picks up from a certain height. Most sneak attacks fly low for most of their mission to *evade* radar detection. It disappeared from radar because it was too low. For more on radar systems and how they relate to military aviation, consult your local library.



*gasps* I do know that. BUt if that is what happened, they decended so low as to not be detected, then why didn't any of the other planes do the same thing? Why didn't they just stay low all the way to the pentagon?? Why did they climb after they had decended only the decend once again.

Once it was near the pentagon it appeared on their screens and they asked the c-130 to follow it. The c-130 did and watched it slam into the pentagon. (why did so few (about 10) see the c-130)

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[FUNKMAN]

http://helmi.home.pages.at/mash/icons/iburghoff01.jpg

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

[TheMojoPin]

I've posed no theory at all.

That's the main problem right there. The rest of us are trying to defend one cohesive theory, where you're free to snipe from ANY angle. You don't have to string anything together.

Then why is his picture still up on the fbi website??? They put this guys face on the news, he saw it and complained. It was his face, but he's not dead so then why don't they just put a big question mark over the pic of waleed m. al-shehri instead of keeping waleed a. al shehri's pic up??

It's the correct photo. I checked dozens of sources around the 'net, news and otherwise, and that's the right photo of the terrorist involved in 9/11. I don't know what else to say, except that what you're basing your ideas on are clearly confusion and misinformation in the days just after the attack.

That's a good question. No other new source, beside the telegraph reported this. It's a question you should pose to cnn, msnbc, fox and others.

Or question The Telegraph and the BBC, since neither ever followed up on it again. Why? Because it was a case of mistaken identity in the flurry of information that was flying around just after the attacks.

I'll readily admit there are areas of question in the science of the explosion/crash, but you're 100% wrong on this identity issue. You're trumping up journalistic confusion as the end-all be-all over longterm investigative results.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Tazz]

you can find the uncropped pictures here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html



How can you take anything from a website which claims that the collapse of WTC 7 was an engineered implosion seriously? That's insane. The whole freaking building was engulfed in flames.

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

[Legolas]

you can find the uncropped pictures here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html



How can you take anything from a website which claims that the collapse of WTC 7 was an engineered implosion seriously? That's insane. The whole freaking building was engulfed in flames.



Ignore any conclusions made from that website. I'm not asking you to believe them nor am I stating that I believe them. Just look at the pictures. They are the orginal pictures that were "leaked".

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Legolas]

That's the main problem right there. The rest of us are trying to defend one cohesive theory, where you're free to snipe from ANY angle. You don't have to string anything together.

But what I am saying is that it isn't cohesive. Yes I am swiping away at stuff that doesn't make sense and have not been answered. I have a bunch of questions based on what I've seen.

I am not an investigator and don't have money to go into this fulltime. If I did, I'd pressure the pentagon or the fbi to release the footage. Then I'd hire someone to see if it's been altered, then I'd get all of the witnesses and interview them one by one. I'd ask them to tell me what they saw, not interpret what they saw based on the official story. Just the facts ma'am. I'd plot the direction they orginally saw the plane coming from and I'd plot their postion. I'd take lots of pictures and i'd even make a a small scale model. I'd review the pictures that have been taken already. What would be most important to me is, if the footage is released, if it's been altered. That would actually stop me from doing everything else because if the footage showed a 757 hitting the pentagon I'd have nothing else to stand on.



Or question The Telegraph and the BBC, since neither ever followed up on it again. Why? Because it was a case of mistaken identity in the flurry of information that was flying around just after the attacks.

Well all i can say is that the guy in the picture saw his picture and said i didn't do it. according to the article he's been interviewed in print and on t.v. people would know what he looks like right??

I'll readily admit there are areas of question in the science of the explosion/crash, but you're 100% wrong on this identity issue. You're trumping up journalistic confusion as the end-all be-all over longterm investigative results.



Well at least you do admit there are questions, which from my understanding of your previous posts, you didn't seem willing to admit.

That's all I am saying. There are questions that haven't been answered.


Maybe the further we get from 9/11 people will be able to ask these questions publicly. There is a stigma on questioning anything that has been labeled "official" because everyone in america watched the wtc be attacked and crumble. If you question that, then that leaves that part of the attack open too and I don't think people want that.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

This message was edited by Legolas on 9-7-04 @ 9:45 PM

[Legolas]

Here is a website that I am currently looking over that has photos of debris from the pentagon that I've never seen before. Ignore any conclusions that are reached that you don't like. The pictures themselves are worth the look.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

edited to add: Before anyone accuses me of flip flopping let me just say that before i take an idea into my thinking I always say to myself "just because i believe this, doesn't make it so". It allows me wiggle room and allows me to see things that don't fit into my beliefs/understanding.

here is the link

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/pentcrash.html

This message was edited by Legolas on 9-7-04 @ 9:59 PM

[FUNKMAN]

thanks! good work!!!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig_funkmanstill.jpg">

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 9-7-04 @ 10:00 PM

[Legolas]

Yeah. This page

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/trj-appr.html

is the best i've seen with multiple photos of the area and little boxes above the photo that you can click on the show the trajectory, where the witnesses were, lamp poles that were knocked down, the sheraton hotel, columbia pike, VDOT mast, the rdge crext and more.


very good.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!


anyone familiar with such things know whether or not the pentagon has any automatic defense systems???

This message was edited by Legolas on 9-7-04 @ 10:34 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Well all i can say is that the guy in the picture saw his picture and said i didn't do it. according to the article he's been interviewed in print and on t.v. people would know what he looks like right??

Ah, here is the source of the confusion. The photo the wrongly accused man was respoding to was not the "official" mug shot that's still being used. That's the photo the BBC was using in the article, but in the incorrect context implying that the innocent man saw THAT photo. He was basing his correct claim of innocence on an earlier photo being used incorrectly.

Well at least you do admit there are questions, which from my understanding of your previous posts, you didn't seem willing to admit.

That's all I am saying. There are questions that haven't been answered.

Fair enough.

edited to add: Before anyone accuses me of flip flopping let me just say that before i take an idea into my thinking I always say to myself "just because i believe this, doesn't make it so". It allows me wiggle room and allows me to see things that don't fit into my beliefs/understanding.

Fair enough.

And while, yes, I agree a lot of people view this as "untouchable" so soon after the fact, I think there are plenty of us out that would live to see a big government coverup exposed...the media especially. They have zero shame and that's their bread and butter. Conspiracies typically do happen for a reason, and usually a very recognizable one, and usually just require one part to be exposed for failure, especially the "bigger" they get. Look to Watergate and Iran/Contra for all of that. I just don't see that here.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Legolas]

Ah, here is the source of the confusion. The photo the wrongly accused man was respoding to was not the "official" mug shot that's still being used. That's the photo the BBC was using in the article, but in the incorrect context implying that the innocent man saw THAT photo. He was basing his correct claim of innocence on an earlier photo being used incorrectly.

I'm willing to buy that. But the article was written around sept 23 2001. If the correct picture was already out why wouldn't they use it. For all of the other photos on that page they used the photos that we now know to be incorrect. Why would that photo be the only real one?

We have seen all of the incorrect photos for the other guys. They are all on the page. Where is that particular persons original, incorrect, photo?



And while, yes, I agree a lot of people view this as "untouchable" so soon after the fact, I think there are plenty of us out that would live to see a big government coverup exposed...the media especially. They have zero shame and that's their bread and butter. Conspiracies typically do happen for a reason, and usually a very recognizable one, and usually just require one part to be exposed for failure, especially the "bigger" they get. Look to Watergate and Iran/Contra for all of that. I just don't see that here.



I see it. I just don't see the mainstream media picking it up. Again, maybe it is too soon. I personally don't think it is and think after 4 years there should be no unanswered questions.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[Legolas]

more great analysis.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-traj.html


this is the kind of stuff i'd like from the government.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[TheMojoPin]

I'm willing to buy that. But the article was written around sept 23 2001. If the correct picture was already out why wouldn't they use it. For all of the other photos on that page they used the photos that we now know to be incorrect. Why would that photo be the only real one?

Confusion. The guy says he saw his picture, the news sources assume he means what at the time had become the "official" picture. I don't know where one can find his original picture...but it's gotta be out there somewhere. I'll take a look around. It's hard, given that he shares the same name as an infamous terrorist!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Legolas]

Man do I hate to do this but here goes


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

This isn't the first time I've read this information.

Another article I read somewhere stated that these guys were here but they were watching the movements of the terrorists and allowed them to do what they did.

I'll try and find it later.

the Mossad are very scary. I believe theri official motto is winning war through deception. We already know that they are spying in this country and might have had some influence in our foreign policy, from recent news reports.


I'd hate to be called anti-Israel but do we need to start distancing ourselves from these guys???

here is another conspiracy site.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!

[canofsoup15]

I'd hate to be called anti-Israel but do we need to start distancing ourselves from these guys???


Oh man, you better hope Mojo doesn't see you saying that, there was a whole thread over Israel's political flamewar factor, and how it is used as a sign of racism. Hint: It's not.

We should be out of there. All it does is cause more and more conflict. Unfortunately, if we do leave the region (I assume) would be less stable than it already is, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

Back on track:

A plane crashed into a pentagon.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AphexTwinD2.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

[Yerdaddy]

Here's one you missed:

http://starbulletin.com/2003/09/05/features/art1c.jpg

I think Bat Boy might have been involved. Not saying he was, just can't rule it out.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[Mike Teacher]

Not to de-rail...

Bwahahahahahaaa like it could get more de-railed...

[ok thats tongue in cheek and so is the following]

I don't know 9/11 very well,but I know a bit about astronomy, and I wantd to show a site that is a Wonderful example of something that can look so Pro and Official and Rock-Solid and There he Is on CNN !! He's Gotta be legit!

And be 100% totally utterly wrong.

And worse yet, just keep on going...

There were so many sites mentioned here, and I tried to find out about U.S.Read, and its impossible, only because the word is so common. I got no response, but hey... The website may be 100% legit from a team of people with the Real Stuff, I dont know. Not judging that one, I'm showing This one, to show that WOW, well, here:

Richard C. Hoagland (http://www.enterprisemission.com/)

I have a feeling Many, if not Most, since we're all radio heads, dont even need to click on the link to know who I'm talking about. It's the guy who hyped the Face On Mars photo, and has been milking it on Art Bell for Years.

Hoagland = Always a brand new amazing discovery! Tomorrow the papers will show! The physics are proven! Nasa agrees! My good friend Arthur C. Clarke agrees!

=

And always 100% full of shit, the poor old bastard. Sign that a 'Science' site isnt very 'Scientific'. When they sell t-shirts and mugs for support.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">

[Legolas]

Not to de-rail...

Bwahahahahahaaa like it could get more de-railed...

[ok thats tongue in cheek and so is the following]

I don't know 9/11 very well,but I know a bit about astronomy, and I wantd to show a site that is a Wonderful example of something that can look so Pro and Official and Rock-Solid and There he Is on CNN !! He's Gotta be legit!

And be 100% totally utterly wrong.

And worse yet, just keep on going...

There were so many sites mentioned here, and I tried to find out about U.S.Read, and its impossible, only because the word is so common. I got no response, but hey... The website may be 100% legit from a team of people with the Real Stuff, I dont know. Not judging that one, I'm showing This one, to show that WOW, well, here:

Richard C. Hoagland (http://www.enterprisemission.com/)

I have a feeling Many, if not Most, since we're all radio heads, dont even need to click on the link to know who I'm talking about. It's the guy who hyped the Face On Mars photo, and has been milking it on Art Bell for Years.

Hoagland = Always a brand new amazing discovery! Tomorrow the papers will show! The physics are proven! Nasa agrees! My good friend Arthur C. Clarke agrees!

=

And always 100% full of shit, the poor old bastard. Sign that a 'Science' site isnt very 'Scientific'. When they sell t-shirts and mugs for support.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/anisig3">


ROTFLMAO!!!

Jesus, Mary Mag and Jo-Jo.


Yes, I know of him.

I'm a aficionado of conspiracy theories. I think I've heard them all.

Check www.abovetopsecret.com

huge site with a multitude of forums devoted to various subjects. Some loonies on, some people who do nothing but try to debunk who wind up getting debunked themselves and some people who are very objective and stand in the middle. Paranormal, astrology, secret societies, ufo's, mythical lands, gov't facilites, gov't projects you name it and you'll fina forum. Their news headlines section puts drudge to shame with it's speed and frequency of updates and their daily global security reports are fantastic.

The site is just massive (and actually helps a lot in some forums where you have people with military experience and who are currently in the military who shed light on a lot of topics) and worth a stop even without the off topic forums.

Ron: Are they lifeguards or lifepussies?!?!