|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 11:42:26 GMT -5
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+changeOne of the very best I have ever seen, and one of the only ones that made me give pause and begin to wonder if there really is some truth to this. Some of the scientific evidence, news video footage, and personal accounts of what happened are really hard to dismiss. Worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 12:50:15 GMT -5
...and then vice president Cheney using the implanted mind control devices forced the arabs to fly into the buildings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 12:59:32 GMT -5
Easy to say when it's obvious you didn't see the video. Maybe you should wait to pass judgement on something until you've actully seen it. Works better that way.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 13:30:31 GMT -5
when i got time i might but I dont usually waste much time on conspiracy stuff, because they are usually kooks or demented or have some other agenda they are fomenting
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 14:11:18 GMT -5
when i got time i might but I dont usually waste much time on conspiracy stuff, because they are usually kooks or demented or have some other agenda they are fomenting I have always felt the same way, but this one was different. It grabbed me right away and then I couldn't stop watching. There are some interviews with NYFD personnel that give their accounts of what they saw and heard and like I said, some of that just can't be so easily dismissed because they were there. And there's something that has always bothered me: people captured video footage of the planes striking the towers with camcorders. The videos were so good in fact that the media kept using the footage rewinding them over and over so you can see the planes slamming into the side of the buildings clearly. People with camcorders on the street caught the plane on impact to where the media would slow it down and you can see the whole plane even when it was slamming into the building. But the one that was supposed to have slammed into the Pentegon that was capture on their cameras, the ones overseeing the Pentegon mind you, those videos you can't see anything but a white line flash by? You can't make out a plane at all? You'd think that the Pentagon would have the best equipment around to guard their grounds. I don't know, that's one thing that has ALWAYS bugged me about that was I've never heard of or seen a commercial airliner move so fast that a video camera cannot even make it out. A 747 moving so fast that all it is is a blur? A literal streak of white? Then they said the plane simply melted away. You mean that it burned so fast that no wreckage was found at all? Not at all? It completely disintegrated? I've never heard of that. I've seen the wreckage of many airline disasters, even planes that have hit the sides of mountains head on and the plane never simply disintegrated to the point of literally vanishing. There were always huge pieces of it laying around. That was always a very weird explanation to me.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 14:15:52 GMT -5
If I recall corectly those pentagon videos were shot by security cams that only took so many frames a second not at the rate of speed a normal camera would. Secondly there is a big difference between how far the cameras were from the planes, its the same if you stand on the highway watching a speeding car aproach you. From a distance the car doesnt look like its going that fast, appears faster at a medium distance, but when it passes you it looks like its flying. A couple of years ago I posted how the fact that the pentagon is built different from any other building. It is designed to withstand being attacked during a war. Walls designed to withstand artillary and aerial bombardment. Battleship class windows etc. Jets are made of materials that are strong but light weight, sure you hit a mountain and there is a lot of debris but put them in an enviroment where its exposed to sustained fire and they get pretty much consumed by fire and what doesnt burn melts. Even metal burns at high enough tempatures.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 14:31:45 GMT -5
Also the missile theory is laughable if this is what they are implying. It would mean fabricating a missing aircraft, the crew, the passengers, all they surviving family members. Their past history etc. All after the fact. This would come unraveled so fast under even the slightest scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 14:56:34 GMT -5
Like I said, I've always found it hard to believe that a giant 747 cannot be made out AT ALL from any of the security cameras. Video or still. And it wasn't that the Pentagon security cameras are designed to only capture a couple of frames at a time (what kind of security is that?), it's that the White House only released 5 frames of video to the public, where all you can see is a streak going by in one, and they say that it is the plane.
I guess that plane must have melted away in 5 minutes then, because you don't see any plane at all in any of the news camera videos that arrived within minutes on the scene. A whole 747 melted away in less than 5 minutes......OK. Lots of scientific firsts seem to have happened on that day I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 15:09:13 GMT -5
Yup, I agree. So then how did that plane punch a hole through several of those fortified building structures? If you yourself just implied a plane would crumble on impact, how do you explain that neat little hole that punched out on the other side of almost four of those buildings?
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 15:21:46 GMT -5
Well unlike the a mountain the building is hollow and the planes wings folded back and were pulled into the building with the fusalage, I am pretty sure I have seen a video that shows this. As the plane proceeded to plow thru reinforced walls its pretty much like when you push a larger object thru a small opening it compacts, the next wall would cause further compaction etc till only a dense projectile would still be moving forward. Its all about inertia and mass, 270,000 lbs of 757 travelling at 500 MPH thats a lot of inertia The problem with shows like this one is they only show what they think confirms their belief, other wise their theory is moot. screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/inertia.html There are so many theorys out there about how the towers had prerigged explosives, pre cut girders etc but for me they all ring hollow.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 15:30:47 GMT -5
You're kind of contradicting yourself. It can withstand that force, that's why the plane crumbled and disintegrated. Now it's because the building is hollow and it couldn't apparently withstand the force. Whatever, you haven't even seen the film. See it and then we can discuss properly. If not, there's no point.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 15:31:26 GMT -5
Cant we argue for arguements sake.
|
|
|
Post by paperdragon on May 17, 2006 15:36:43 GMT -5
My point on the pentagons design explains why the hole was so small compared to the size of the airplane. My point on the wings and the building not being a solid object like a mountain is to explain away their theory why didnt the wings didnt tear off and reamain outside the hole along with other airplane debris.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dog on May 17, 2006 15:42:10 GMT -5
My point on the pentagons design explains why the hole was so small compared to the size of the airplane. So one little tiny piece of the 747 went through all those buildings, but the rest of the plane disintegrated? OK.
|
|
uglyknuckles
Singing Slasher
Rebel Hitman
"You can't kill what won't die, they try but the strong survive." --Freddy C from Madball
Posts: 993
|
Post by uglyknuckles on May 17, 2006 20:35:07 GMT -5
I know people who were in the Pentagon that day. It was a plane. Pieces of civilian motherfuckers and baggage were all over the place. That's enough for me.
The other cameras that shoot footage of the Pentagon will never be discussed and the footage never declassified.
|
|