|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 8th, 2004 07:53 PM | |
| davinxtk |
Punch some key words into google on this one. There's a whole host of sites arguing in both directions, and both of them have alarmingly weak evidence. All of the security camera footage that could have covered this was confiscated. Eyewitnesses report a huge jet, but I don't think many people have been so close to a commuter jet. They could be completely mistaken about the style/size. When asked to produce debris, the sites arguing that a 757 hit the building all show the same piece of debris on the ground over and over again, as though it was the only one there. On one site it's argued that the reason not as much damage was done to the building as you'd expect a 757 to do is because it hit the ground first. There are, however, no marks on the ground at all. The same site says that at the speed it hit, the engines probably smashed and shattered themselves against the outside of the building; while later on in the page they point out a 14-foot-hole on the fourth wall of the building that was apparently caused by one of the engines forcing itself through the walls. Where's the shot of the engine resting inside the Pentagon? The sites that support the jet theory claim that the remains of all but one of the passengers was found. Which passenger? Could that be significant? Or really, are any of those passengers real people whose remains can actually be confirmed? Could it be that the jet hit first, and the missile scream and second explosion heard was a missile that was fired in an attempt at defense, from a fighter jet, that didn't make contact soon enough? If so, could much of what happened to the Pentagon be collateral damage? These sites all raise questions that I don't think we're ever going to find the answers to. At least not until some b-rate Zapruder comes around. And I can almost promise you the first one won't be authentic. |
| Sep 8th, 2004 07:48 PM | |
| The_Rorschach |
For the record though, the corroborating evidence for the official explanation is rather convincing. Simply follow the timeline account given here: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ay_of_911=ua93 |
| Sep 8th, 2004 07:28 PM | |
| The_Rorschach |
My opinion is simply that is it amusing. I'm not familiar enough with the principal evidence to offer any more qualified an insight than anyone else on this topic. All I have had access to is the same secondary information and accounts as anyone else. Do I believe it? Not necessarily. Do I believe if it is very much far fetched? Sadly, no. I still remember the questions raised after the events in Oklahoma as to whether the explosive material McVeigh had gathered was enough to cause the damage to the Federal Buidling. Valid or not, such questions always give me pause, if only out of mistrust for the knee-jerk reactions which they bring about. I apologise if my lack of introduction to the above caused offense or annoyance, but I didn't offer anything further because I had nothing further to offer. I thought it was amusing, and consequently, worth passing on. |
| Sep 8th, 2004 05:28 PM | |
| El Blanco | And? What is your opinion? Do you believe this or is it just some conspiracy stuff you find funny? |
| Sep 8th, 2004 03:31 PM | |
| The_Rorschach |
Something Amusing http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf |
