Conspiracy? Or just more nonsense?

This is a discussion on Conspiracy? Or just more nonsense? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; As for all the where is all the damage, and where is the boing... That section of the builing had ...

  1. #16
    Lead Moderator kermi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1998
    Posts
    2,595
    As for all the where is all the damage, and where is the boing...

    That section of the builing had JUST been finished renovations. In the renovations one of the primary "things" that they did was to heavily reinforce teh building agienst bombs, both from insides and out, it preformed as it was supposed to.

    As for the dirt/gravel? Does the author no anythinga bout emergency access road design or constuction, I don't either but....
    Kermi3

    If you're new to the boards, welcome and reading this will help you get started.
    Information on code tags may be found here

    - Sandlot is the highest form of sport.

  2. #17
    Shadow12345
    Guest
    Just to add another tidbit (unless someone has already said this) if the plane did in fact cause little damage to the pentagon it was probably because of the fact it hit so low, it either hit the ground in front of the building or hit the building, continued into the building and then hit ground level thus losing much of its momentum. Coupled with what kermi said, the pentagon is, in all liklihood, reenforced with either thick concrete with iron bars or something to that effect.

    AND MY COUSIN SAW THE FREAKING THING HIT THE FREAKING BUILDING

  3. #18
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
    Depends on how you define "otherwise undamaged". If it means you don't know why he sanded a piece of totally ruined, somewhat burned grass polluted by a flood of water-jet fuel mixture then you might have a look at your states environmental laws. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal to leave it that way.
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  4. #19
    Refugee face_master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,052
    AND MY COUSIN SAW THE FREAKING THING HIT THE FREAKING BUILDING
    Hrm...yes. And you are quite sure that your cousin is not an alien?

  5. #20
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    Banal internet user BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,380
    For a while I had my doubts about the Flight77 crash... but after watching the surveilance video again and again, and looking at the photos, comparing them, making little models and reinacting it, I've decided that it's all for real, and that questioning it in the first place is a sad display of Americans' lack of trust in their country.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    Yes because the US government would so want to conspire to obliterate a fifth of one of its most important, expensive, buildings and then pretend an airplane hit it on the exact same day two airplanes hit the twin towers.

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by BMJ
    For a while I had my doubts about the Flight77 crash... but after watching the surveilance video again and again, and looking at the photos, comparing them, making little models and reinacting it, I've decided that it's all for real, and that questioning it in the first place is a sad display of Americans' lack of trust in their country.
    Count me in that crew, but change 'lack of trust in their country' to lack of trust in their government'.
    Not necessarily doubting the Pentagon crash, but the government has done a great number of things to reduce and eliminate civil liberties since the crash, all in the name of 'national security'.
    All kinds of things are being done in the name of 'national security' or 'fighting terrorism' that erode or eliminate our freedom. I don't want to start a fight over specifics here, just read the news and think about it.
    Last week Bush eliminated scheduled pay raises for civil service employees in the name of 'national security'. Pay raises for federal employees may not be a civil liberty, but regardless of their economic merit, what the hell does that have to do with national security?
    Now, we may nuke people (you don't nuke a country, you nuke people) if we suspect their leaders may nuke or bio-weapon us. Of course, if those same weapons are becoming more available to terrorist groups, as alleged, no doubt we can count that they won't respond in kind.
    But, they say, we're in a war, a war against terrorism. Given the nature of the modern world and the nature of terrorism, how in the hell can they ever say the war is won? All terrorists need is a few people, common tools, and a little luck. It's not like defeating armies. So basically, this is a permanent state of war.
    And now the government wants to create a massive database recording everything possible about every person in the US, so they can scan for 'suspicious activity'. Does this sound like what Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc, envisioned? Not to me. Sounds more like what Orwell envisioned in '1984', or Gilliam in 'Brazil'.
    WAKE UP!
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  8. #23
    Evil Sock Puppet MadHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    176
    *applauds* well said...

    >>you don't nuke a country, you nuke people
    so glad i'm not the only one that thinks (knows) this...

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >we may nuke people if we suspect their leaders may nuke or bio-weapon us.

    I can guaratee you that wont happen. The only way we could know for certain if we were about to be nuked is if we saw them loading the launch bay. In that case we would just bomb them, send in special forces, etc. The only time we would ever nuke a country is if they nuked us first.

    Not even George W. is stupid enough to pre-emptively nuke a country!
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
    >we may nuke people if we suspect their leaders may nuke or bio-weapon us.

    I can guaratee you that wont happen. The only way we could know for certain if we were about to be nuked is if we saw them loading the launch bay. In that case we would just bomb them, send in special forces, etc. The only time we would ever nuke a country is if they nuked us first.

    Not even George W. is stupid enough to pre-emptively nuke a country!
    Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But his policy makes no such distinction. And what message does that policy send? Country X (Iraq today, plenty more in the future) feels that the US will launch a pre-emptive strike on them, so they launch one on the US. More terrorists are created either way.
    What are you going to do, nuke hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people (in the name of ending terrorism) because a few dozen top leaders of their country, most of whom probably escaped safely, may have done something which could have posed a threat?
    If we see them loading the launch bay, by all means destroy it and take out those responsible. Heck, if we see a launch bay, take it out. But the Bush doctrine is a precursor to Armageddon.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  11. #26
    Funniest man in this seat minesweeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    801
    >>I can guaratee you that wont happen. The only way we could know for certain if we were about to be nuked is if we saw them loading the launch bay. In that case we would just bomb them, send in special forces, etc. The only time we would ever nuke a country is if they nuked us first.<<

    I think what you say is certainly true. Though it does worry me when people start talking about nukes as an answer. Not anyone in particular, just those in general who think creating another Hiroshima is a solution.

  12. #27
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    I have no view one way or the other concerning the conspiracy/event, however...

    >>>
    There wouldnt be very much debris at all. Again, considering the speed at which the plane nose dived, the entire body of the plane would have compacted onto itself.
    <<<

    ... I don't recall ever seeing footage of a plane crash where there were no recognisable fragments. Even machines plunging from cruise altitude, (PanAm 103 Lockerbie for example), the cockpit/nose lying on the outskirts of the town provided a haunting image.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  13. #28
    Funniest man in this seat minesweeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    801
    >>... I don't recall ever seeing footage of a plane crash where there were no recognisable fragments. Even machines plunging from cruise altitude, (PanAm 103 Lockerbie for example), the cockpit/nose lying on the outskirts of the town provided a haunting image.<<

    I agree with what you are saying Adrian, though the Lockerbie disaster isn't quite comparable. The plane didn't crash as such, it exploded in mid air. But yes you are right, there have been other plane crashes like that big one in Japan a few years back where the plane went into the side of a mountain. And in these crashes it is usual to see some if not a lot of debris.

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >Bush doctrine is a precursor to Armageddon.
    Unfortunately I cannot disagree with that statement.

    >I don't recall ever seeing footage of a plane crash where there were no recognisable fragments....

    One has to make a distinction between a plane that has lost control and the pilot trying to land it as safely as possible and someone nose-diving straight into the ground. The angle of approach makes a big difference in the amount of and distance plane fragments are scattered.

    Also, assuming he flew into the builing with the plane pointing towards the center, most of the debris from the plane would have had a forward velocity and flew towards the center of the building, and would not have been visible from the outside. Furthermore, assuming the plane hit the ground complete inside the builing, the builing itself would have prevented debris from scattering

    Im no physicist, nor have I studied plane crashes and such. My point in answering the questions posed on that site were to offer a possible explanation, one that is much more likely to have occured than some government conspiracy.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  15. #30
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>Now, we may nuke people (you don't nuke a country, you nuke people) if we suspect their leaders may nuke or bio-weapon us.<<

    Or if they hide in a bunker that the conventional bombs can't destroy. ie Sadam


    >> One has to make a distinction between a plane that has lost control and the pilot trying to land it as safely as possible and someone nose-diving straight into the ground. The angle of approach makes a big difference in the amount of and distance plane fragments are scattered.<<

    A disgruntled employee (charged for stealing) hijacked a plane (forget exactly where in the US) and then forced it to 'power dive'. Broke the sound barrier coming in. No piece bigger than a sheet of news paper left. But they still found a partial finger print on a gun trigger guard and so worked out what happened. Whole area was covered in small pieces.

    Seems strange to me that there is no descenable pieces of wreckage but prahaps they were quickly removed?

    I have also read that the plane that crashed due to the passengers fighting back, may have been shot down on Cheney's orders. This is due to wreckage locations (in particular an engine) and sightings of military aircraft just prior to its crashing. Could be as it was reprtedly heading into Washington airspace. Another hit, on the Whitehouse would have had extreme results for the US, propaganda wise (as GWB was out of state)

    http://www.flight93crash.com/


    Now who has the link showing that it was realy disgruntled NASA chimps. You know they had more filght experience..................
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. main returns int -- compiler returns nonsense
    By Zach L. in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2005, 09:53 AM
  2. Conspiracy List
    By face_master in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 09-11-2002, 11:39 AM
  3. Conspiracy
    By face_master in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-23-2002, 01:50 PM
  4. Sega naming conspiracy
    By Scourfish in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2001, 10:16 PM
  5. Conspiracy!
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-17-2001, 06:54 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21