Conspiracy? Or just more nonsense?

I don't as a rule give any time for conspiracy theories as I am by nature quite a sceptical person. But I got sent this link today which got me thinking. Part of me doesn't really agree with producing this sort of stuff because people died in the incident and to me it just seems.........well quite sick.

The two bits that stand out for me are the bit where the boeing is superimposed showing the wingspan and the bit about there being no wreckage on the lawn. See what you think,

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

Wow.

Certainly seems like they are hiding something. I dont think that you would be able to see no wreckage after the plane collided. The back portion of the plane would still remain. The wings should be left too, since it didnt even cause damage to the second ring.

There must be information regarding the flight nimber, passengers etc. I dont know how you can hide that type of information.

Strange

Who said that the boeing that they superimposed was in correct proportions to the building?



Every "Real" intelligent person knows that the US accidentally set off their new "light bomb" that splits light particles instead of atoms.

My cousin saw the airplane hit the god damn building.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow12345
My cousin saw the airplane hit the god damn building.

---

maybe they had a flashy thing like in Men in Black... and the whole thing was actually a flying saucer.. and they brainwashed everyone. these things happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow12345
My cousin saw the airplane hit the god damn building.

---

Does your cousin work for the government? *X-Files music plays in the background*

Quote:

---

Does your cousin work for the government? *X-Files music plays in the background*

---

lol Eibro, hmmmmmm maybe he does!!! Maybe he's a part of the whole conspiracy!! *wink wink*

no he does not work for the government, he said he was stuck in traffic and he saw the airplane making a low sharp turn and then it nose dived into the ground. He may not have actually even seen it hit the building, only saw it disappear over the horizon and heard what he thought was a crash but was really a truck, so maybe it is a conspiracy after all :)

i remember this topic being brought up a while ago..

anyways, if there was a nose dive, then how did only the bottom floor got hit?




p.s.the java script was something i've never seen b4

Yes, but that is pretty weird. Either the 'witnesses' were bribed or something, or they took away the wreakage straight away

i dont really think its possible to move the wreakage that fast + there were hardly any witnesses unlike the towers

what about the people who died?

Considering there are thousands of gallons (I dont know how much, just throwing around numbers) of jet fuel on board, on impact the entire plane would be incinerated (havent you seen the footage of the planes hitting the towers, a large fireball engulfed the plane on impact).

As you can see on some of the photographs, there is a gaping hole in the roof. The plane may have flewn(sp?) through that hole and the explosion may of occured only after the plane hit the ground, which would account for most of the initial damage being on the first floor only. The side of the building remaining relatively intact after a jumbo jet hit it is a testament to the skill of the engineers.

if the plane burst into flames and hit the ground before it hit the pentagon, then wouldn't there be a big trench from the nose smashing against the ground?

and if there WAS an explosion, don't you think it would at least incinerate a decent portion above the plane, not even to mention out the sides?

I dont mean the ground as in the ground on the outside, I mean the ground as in the bottom floor of the building

>and if there WAS an explosion, don't you think it would at least incinerate a decent portion above the plane, not even to mention out the sides?

It did. The pictures clearly show at least up to the second floor is badly burned and so it part of the third floor

These people have way to much time on there hands...

>Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Considering the mass of the plane and its speed, its momentum would have been incredible! If the plane took a nose dive into the pentagon, there would only be a relatively small section in diameter of damage to the building. Its not as if the plane stopped in mid air, then fell downward belly first. It _nose dived_ into the building.

Furthermore, the speed of the plane and the fact that it nose dived supports the fact that there is relatively little damage to the building outside of where the plane collided. My physics teacher did a demonstration once where he shot a pencil through a piece of wood. The only damage to the wood was where the pencil went through.

>Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

read my earlier post

>You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

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. Plus, since the plane landed completely inside the builing, any debris that might have flown about during the explosion would have been contained withing the builing itself

>Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

I have no idea!

>Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Again, they would have been compressed just as all the other debris inside the building. Assuming the plane nose-dived, why would one expect the wings to have popped off and land on the front lawn?

>Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

because they could only see from the outside and the plane itself would have been completely demolished

>Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Cant really tell anything from that picture. And, if the plane did a nose-dive through the roof, there wouldnt be any impact crater on the surface.

>Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?

Yes.

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....

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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!

*applauds* well said...

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

>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!

Quote:

---

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.

>>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.

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.

>>... 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.

>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.

>>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..................