Old Hippie Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 ok Fidel , let's keep a score card here , just for the records. WTC #1 plane or no plane WTC #2 plane or no plane Pentagon plane or no plane Some field in PA , plane or no plane Yes, Planes in all 4, I saw the footage of 2 of them hitting the towers. Whether or not they were hijacked by suicideal terrorists, remains a guess to me. They could have been rigged as drones, the technology does exist. I do NOT believe the planes alone brought down the Twin towers, and yet left the Passports of 2 terrorists intact, and immediately discovered, sorry, Not buying that. I also think they knew about the attacks, but did nothing to stop it/them, they (the govenment, or factions within it) wanted "another Pearl Harbour." Tough accept that any of this could have happened, but I am just not willing to buy this 100% as spoon fed to me. Some Russian Intelligence guys swears the Plane in Pennsylvania was shot down, not ideas if yes or no. Pentagon...who knows, again could have been rigged as a drone. I know what lies the government told me in El Salvador, so nothing they say now has 100% credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 "... In fact, radar shows one plane was searching for the capital and couldn't find it (of course), so it went on to find the pentagon which is real easy to spot from the sky..." How can radar tell what the pilot is looking for? The Pentagon seems a better target than the Capital, which is also easy to spot from the air, as is the white house, Washington Monument etc... "...If you want to be skeptical, be skeptical. But I don't see any compelling counter theories..." I am very skeptical, And one theory is as good as the next. Any part of one or the other makes as much sense as what the "official" claim is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 the usa is too bold to make some pretext for invasion, they didn't need such a dramatic 'event' to go to war, pure bullshit all this conspiracy nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 ok can someone with authority say that mobiles over dc and nyc cant work in areoplanes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Phil, As I said, I know what lies they told me/us in El Salvador/the Army. I am just not willing to believe they are telling us 100% of the truth. Same with recent releases about WWII, Korea, other Military considerations, the Kennedy assassination etc. Nothing is ever 100% true, as it is presented to us. Sad to say, most Americans will indeed buy bullshit if it is packaged nicely and the proper celeberty endorses it. Many maybe most Americans believe GWB cheated in the elections, yet he is still the president, go figure...? If one lie is true, why not any others? Remember, skeptics keep them on their toes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanddawg1 Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 There was no conspiracy. If any of the board members want to take cheap shots at my comments fine but I am somewhat of an expert in the fields of Metallurgy and Failure Analysis. 1. (Common Sense) If the building were rigged with devises there would have been no need to crash the planes into them. The identities of the highjackers were confirmed and the planes did in fact hit the towers. It took the bad guys years and millions of $$$$$. They tried the conventional way the first time remember. 2. The towers were not brought down by the impact of the airliners; the towers were designed to withstand that, and they did. 3. What the engineers did fail to take into account was the heat generated by 100s of thousands of burning jet fuel. 4. I have studied the film over and over in classes and discussions; the towers collapsed from the top down caused by the outer metal framework literally heating to the point of plasticity. This caused the metal grating supporting the concrete floor panels to collapse onto the floors below with the full weight of the top floors a domino effect. I believe the JFK conspiracy but not this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unit731 Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Got to love those who believe in 'conspiracy theories'. All of this just to invade Iraq? Or 'wire tapping'? They have been wire tapping since the phone was invented. Some were legal, most were and still are illegal. The illegal ones just can't be used as legal evidence. But beyone all this go to : www.skeptic.com And further from article: "Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the buildingâ??s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 â??fell straight down, into a convenient pile,â? the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of â??convenient pileâ? described by conspiracy theorists.13" Got to love the conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Although pure evil the terrorists were incredibly brave, tenacious and highly organised, for that I admired them, it took some balls to do what they did really amazing what they pulled off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 << I know what lies the government told me in El Salvador, so nothing they say now has 100% credibility. >> Same same me. I just thought I was where I was, but in fact no Americans were there. The govmt said so! p.s. It's pretty much accepted that Lincoln forced the Confederacy into attacking Fort Sumter in 1861. Otherwise, plenty of folks in the North would have been willing to let the southern states secede. Politicians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 And who are those "leading scientists"? I doubt they are leading in the area of construction physics. There is always an underdog group of outsiders and losers who are creative in coming up with conspiracy theories. There are many reasons to be critical about president Bush, vice pres Cheyney and - definitely - Don Rumsfield, especially regarding the Iraq fiasco. Choose the right type of fight and it will be more effective than B-movie conspiracy scenarios. At least wait for more sustainable evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.