I think its obvious there is an American government that is the image that gets portrayed to the people, and some government officials believe in that image, and there are groups behind that which actual function...
lordy i have nothing concrete to add....just thought this was all obvious...
edit: and i know this video doesn't prove anything...
darb, that video always irked me too. i know bush is terribly stupid, but fabricating the details around it too :mad: thing is, he has said this more than once in public.
Maybe that is because, in most other crashes, the pilot's were trying to control the aircraft, rather than crash it deliberately. I have a friend that works aircraft accident investigation here in Ontario. His opinion is that the hole in PA looks EXACTLY like what he would expect to see when an aircraft hits the ground at an almost vertical descent aspect, which is how Flight 93 impacted the ground. That is why wreckage was found so far below ground level when the site was excavated.
"and yes, I believe it was a plane that hit that building. Otherwise, where did the plane that "didn't" hit the Pentagon go? And what about all the passengers on that plane?"
is that the only reason? because what happened to the real plane? that's the only thing that bothers you about the pentagon site?
Nope. I am convinced by the evidence I have seen brought forward that an aircraft hit the pentagon. What I was asking you is, if it was not an aircraft, then what happened to the people and the plane that supposed to have crashed/died there? I forget which flight# it was, but it definitely took off, and has yet to land, so where did it/they go?
Maybe that is because, in most other crashes, the pilot's were trying to control the aircraft, rather than crash it deliberately. I have a friend that works aircraft accident investigation here in Ontario. His opinion is that the hole in PA looks EXACTLY like what he would expect to see when an aircraft hits the ground at an almost vertical descent aspect, which is how Flight 93 impacted the ground. That is why wreckage was found so far below ground level when the site was excavated.
that clears everything up for me now. thank your friend for me. I'm convinced. Total vaporization is possible, good to know.
Nope. I am convinced by the evidence I have seen brought forward that an aircraft hit the pentagon. What I was asking you is, if it was not an aircraft, then what happened to the people and the plane that supposed to have crashed/died there? I forget which flight# it was, but it definitely took off, and has yet to land, so where did it/they go?
Still waiting for an answer . . .
gj fixing your signature.
for me to answer what happened to the people/plane would be for me to acknowledge there was a plane to be accounted for in the first place.
"but it definitely took off" how do you know? can your plane crash friend verify that for me?
Aircraft was beyond 70 degrees of vertical, and inverted, traveling at nearly supersonic speed when it impacted the ground. No one said anything about vapourization, but that kind of impact is going to utterly destroy an aluminum skinned aircraft, and the soft, squishy people inside it.
e=mv squared is an inescapable fact of life. Sorry if it gets in the way of your meme.
for me to answer what happened to the people/plane would be for me to acknowledge there was a plane to be accounted for in the first place.
"but it definitely took off" how do you know? can your plane crash friend verify that for me?
No, but I am sure that the airline flightplan, tapes from the ATC tower, not to mention the info on the Flight Data Recorder, and cockpit voice tapes could . . . unless that was all simulated in the soundsatge where they filmed the moon landings.
But I guess all the people who weren't on board just left their jobs, and their families, all at the same time . . . just had an urge to go to Tahiti, I guess.
Aircraft was beyond 70 degrees of vertical, and inverted, traveling at nearly supersonic speed when it impacted the ground. No one said anything about vapourization, but that kind of impact is going to utterly destroy an aluminum skinned aircraft, and the soft, squishy people inside it.
e=mv squared is an inescapable fact of life. Sorry if it gets in the way of your meme.
I'm glad you have all the answers (too bad you chose to be hostile in delivering them) I sure as shit dont have the answers as you and your ontario airplance accident officer friend do. I just have questions.
for anyone who is following the film links, here is one that asks a lot of questions I'm sure milo and his friends can answer for you
I'm glad you have all the answers (too bad you chose to be hostile in delivering them) I sure as shit dont have the answers as you and your ontario airplance accident officer friend do. I just have questions.
for anyone who is following the film links, here is one that asks a lot of questions I'm sure milo and his friends can answer for you
I do not claim to have the answers. I am simply willing to accept the answers put forth by trained investigators who have examined the evidence before them, rather than give credence to conspiracy theorists who have been debunked over and over and over again . . .
You stated an unwillingness to acknowledge a plane taking off "in the first place", in a previous post.
So, the conspiracy (just for this one small aspect) would now include the following people/organizations:
the individuals who bought tickets
the flight crew that boarded the plane
the ramp crew that loaded the plane
the airline that owned the plane
the air traffic controllers who controlled the aircraft's movements until it was hijacked
that is a hell of a lot of people who have managed to keep silent for all these years.
No . . . physics says it must be so. Or was Sir Isaac Newton in on it, too?
I do not claim to have the answers. I am simply willing to accept the answers put forth by trained investigators who have examined the evidence before them, rather than give credence to conspiracy theorists who have been debunked over and over and over again . . .
You stated an unwillingness to acknowledge a plane taking off "in the first place", in a previous post.
So, the conspiracy (just for this one small aspect) would now include the following people/organizations:
the individuals who bought tickets
the flight crew that boarded the plane
the ramp crew that loaded the plane
the airline that owned the plane
the air traffic controllers who controlled the aircraft's movements until it was hijacked
that is a hell of a lot of people who have managed to keep silent for all these years.
Occam's Razor, ftw . . .
not saying the plane didnt go down, I'm saying i dont believe one hit the pentagon from what I have observed.
No, it simply means that they have not been identified.
As for what my buddy thinks about UFOs, I would not presume to speak for him, but I doubt it (at least the little green men bits). He's "from Missouri", so to speak.
As to who shot JFK, start a new thread and we'll talk about it.
not saying the plane didnt go down, I'm saying i dont believe one hit the pentagon from what I have observed.
What have you observed that convinces you that a plane did not strike the pentagon?
There are widely available photographs that show wreckage at the pentagon crash site that match engine parts found on a 757-200! Do you believe these were planted moments after whatever you believe happened?
Seriously, I'm beginning to believe... that this is not one giant level!
I doubt very much that it is . . . that sort of planning could not be kept secret for this long, either . . . .
Someone would have shot their yapper off by now.
As for video: Any editor worth their salt could do anything to make these vidoes look like something else happened. Conspiracy theorists who pretty much live in Mom's basement, and watch star trek re-runs all day and night choking their chickens have nothing better to do with their lives than spread:bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs:
And; take some pretty good DRUGS.... imo
except when someone tries to reveal the secret they get labeled as morons and people don't listen to them or give any credit.
i would like to know your answer re: JFK, since a bulk of your argument is that it couldn't be done, because it couldn't be kept secret.
I would guess you either think there WAS a coverup, which makes you a hypocrite, or there wasn't, which makes you...
not as smart as I thought you were I think sums it
I believe, in the JFK case, that there is a greater possibility that the official story is not 100% accurate than there is with 9/11.
I do not see how this is in any way hypocritical. Note that I am NOT saying the official JFK story CANNOT be the truth, only that I believe it is more possible that certain things have not been revealed in the JFK case than in the 9/11 situation. In 1963, it would have been much easier to suppress information of an event than it is today. The internet makes the dissemination of information (even crazy whack-job information, which is part of the problem) so much easier.
Example: How many non-corporate images and videos of the 9/11 attacks have become available on-line. Video taken with cam-corders, cell-phones, etc., that belong to private citizens as opposed to ABC, CNN, et al? Now, think about how much footage there was of the JFK shooting. As far as I know there was only 1 non-news agency video taken of the JFK shooting (Zapruder film). Far easier to suppress 1 tape, if that is what you want to do, then it is to sieze thousands.
Look, Neil, if you want to believe that Bush (etc.), or some other shadowy group, was behind the 9/11 attacks, have a ball. I choose to believe otherwise. Neither of us is going to change the other one's mind.
As for JFK, I think there are unanswered questions there that, at some point, will have to be fully addressed. But even you will have to admit that control of information was far easier in the early 60's than it is currently. The idea that, if I believe there might be a JFK conspiracy (for want of a better term) but not a 9/11 plot makes me a hypocrite (or an idiot), is ridiculous. The two situations are barely comparable given the vastly different time/culture milieu in which they took place.
Comments
darb, that video always irked me too. i know bush is terribly stupid, but fabricating the details around it too :mad: thing is, he has said this more than once in public.
Maybe that is because, in most other crashes, the pilot's were trying to control the aircraft, rather than crash it deliberately. I have a friend that works aircraft accident investigation here in Ontario. His opinion is that the hole in PA looks EXACTLY like what he would expect to see when an aircraft hits the ground at an almost vertical descent aspect, which is how Flight 93 impacted the ground. That is why wreckage was found so far below ground level when the site was excavated.
Nope. I am convinced by the evidence I have seen brought forward that an aircraft hit the pentagon. What I was asking you is, if it was not an aircraft, then what happened to the people and the plane that supposed to have crashed/died there? I forget which flight# it was, but it definitely took off, and has yet to land, so where did it/they go?
Still waiting for an answer . . .
that clears everything up for me now. thank your friend for me. I'm convinced. Total vaporization is possible, good to know.
gj fixing your signature.
for me to answer what happened to the people/plane would be for me to acknowledge there was a plane to be accounted for in the first place.
"but it definitely took off" how do you know? can your plane crash friend verify that for me?
e=mv squared is an inescapable fact of life. Sorry if it gets in the way of your meme.
No, but I am sure that the airline flightplan, tapes from the ATC tower, not to mention the info on the Flight Data Recorder, and cockpit voice tapes could . . . unless that was all simulated in the soundsatge where they filmed the moon landings.
But I guess all the people who weren't on board just left their jobs, and their families, all at the same time . . . just had an urge to go to Tahiti, I guess.
you've said it. It must be so.
for anyone who is following the film links, here is one that asks a lot of questions I'm sure milo and his friends can answer for you
9/11 In Plane Site - Director's Cut#
No . . . physics says it must be so. Or was Sir Isaac Newton in on it, too?
I do not claim to have the answers. I am simply willing to accept the answers put forth by trained investigators who have examined the evidence before them, rather than give credence to conspiracy theorists who have been debunked over and over and over again . . .
You stated an unwillingness to acknowledge a plane taking off "in the first place", in a previous post.
So, the conspiracy (just for this one small aspect) would now include the following people/organizations:
the individuals who bought tickets
the flight crew that boarded the plane
the ramp crew that loaded the plane
the airline that owned the plane
the air traffic controllers who controlled the aircraft's movements until it was hijacked
that is a hell of a lot of people who have managed to keep silent for all these years.
Occam's Razor, ftw . . .
who shot jfk?
not saying the plane didnt go down, I'm saying i dont believe one hit the pentagon from what I have observed.
Does that mean those objects are spaceships?
No, it simply means that they have not been identified.
As for what my buddy thinks about UFOs, I would not presume to speak for him, but I doubt it (at least the little green men bits). He's "from Missouri", so to speak.
As to who shot JFK, start a new thread and we'll talk about it.
Then my previous post is equally valid here. What happened to the plane/people that the "official story" says hit the Pentagon?
Again, you have far too many disparate individuals involved for what you are suggesting to remain secret for all this time.
What have you observed that convinces you that a plane did not strike the pentagon?
There are widely available photographs that show wreckage at the pentagon crash site that match engine parts found on a 757-200! Do you believe these were planted moments after whatever you believe happened?
Seriously, I'm beginning to believe... that this is not one giant level!
As for video: Any editor worth their salt could do anything to make these vidoes look like something else happened. Conspiracy theorists who pretty much live in Mom's basement, and watch star trek re-runs all day and night choking their chickens have nothing better to do with their lives than spread:bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs::bs:
And; take some pretty good DRUGS.... imo
Don't you have any kittens to spay?
I'm fairly sure the Americans threw the war to keep a buffer between themselves and military juggernaut Russia, which had just whipped Napoleon!
<perhaps an exaggeration with the word whipped>
be nice... you might get labeled a sociopath.
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
look at 4:20.....whoooooooo
YouTube - Bush Caught Lying About September 11th
except when someone tries to reveal the secret they get labeled as morons and people don't listen to them or give any credit.
i would like to know your answer re: JFK, since a bulk of your argument is that it couldn't be done, because it couldn't be kept secret.
I would guess you either think there WAS a coverup, which makes you a hypocrite, or there wasn't, which makes you...
not as smart as I thought you were I think sums it
Ok guys please tone down the veiled and not so veiled insults. This is not 2+2. I just have a sense that this could quickly escalate..
By all means debate, disagree, and discuss but do not stoop to direct attacks. You haven't really so far but I suspect it was about to...
On with the interesting debate. I'm not going to give my opinion but do have a fairly strong one..
I believe, in the JFK case, that there is a greater possibility that the official story is not 100% accurate than there is with 9/11.
I do not see how this is in any way hypocritical. Note that I am NOT saying the official JFK story CANNOT be the truth, only that I believe it is more possible that certain things have not been revealed in the JFK case than in the 9/11 situation. In 1963, it would have been much easier to suppress information of an event than it is today. The internet makes the dissemination of information (even crazy whack-job information, which is part of the problem) so much easier.
Example: How many non-corporate images and videos of the 9/11 attacks have become available on-line. Video taken with cam-corders, cell-phones, etc., that belong to private citizens as opposed to ABC, CNN, et al? Now, think about how much footage there was of the JFK shooting. As far as I know there was only 1 non-news agency video taken of the JFK shooting (Zapruder film). Far easier to suppress 1 tape, if that is what you want to do, then it is to sieze thousands.
Look, Neil, if you want to believe that Bush (etc.), or some other shadowy group, was behind the 9/11 attacks, have a ball. I choose to believe otherwise. Neither of us is going to change the other one's mind.
As for JFK, I think there are unanswered questions there that, at some point, will have to be fully addressed. But even you will have to admit that control of information was far easier in the early 60's than it is currently. The idea that, if I believe there might be a JFK conspiracy (for want of a better term) but not a 9/11 plot makes me a hypocrite (or an idiot), is ridiculous. The two situations are barely comparable given the vastly different time/culture milieu in which they took place.
He's one of them :-X