Red Mosquito

Peeps wrote:area 51 i can believe

In about 65 more years I can legally talk about this.

BurtReynolds wrote:Dave A. banged Beth.

Yeah, but only after he was fired from the band.

Green Habit wrote:Not to be a total Debbie Downer, but I think Penn and Teller summed up a great thing to note about conspiracy theories in general (they used the truthers as an example):

Wasn't 9/11 enough of a conspiracy to make the theorists happy?

Religious fanatics, directed by God, conspired to use planes as suicide bombs. They conspired to destroy an American landmark, to kill thousands of people, and to crush the economy, liberty, and spirit of the greatest nation on earth. They did it on a low budget, with pure cunning and psychotic determination. Don't the conspiracy theorists realize that sometimes, something simple, and small, and crazy, and mean, can destroy something big and beautiful?

reminds me of this norman mailer quote about JFK's assassination (though i don't know the source, so whether it's a real quote idk)

Norman Mailer wrote:It is virtually not assimilable to our reason that a small lonely man felled a giant in the midst of his limousines, his legions, his throng, and his security. If such a non-entity destroyed the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, then a world of disporoportion engulfs us, and we live in a universe that it absurd.

dkfan9 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Not to be a total Debbie Downer, but I think Penn and Teller summed up a great thing to note about conspiracy theories in general (they used the truthers as an example):

Wasn't 9/11 enough of a conspiracy to make the theorists happy?

Religious fanatics, directed by God, conspired to use planes as suicide bombs. They conspired to destroy an American landmark, to kill thousands of people, and to crush the economy, liberty, and spirit of the greatest nation on earth. They did it on a low budget, with pure cunning and psychotic determination. Don't the conspiracy theorists realize that sometimes, something simple, and small, and crazy, and mean, can destroy something big and beautiful?

reminds me of this norman mailer quote about JFK's assassination (though i don't know the source, so whether it's a real quote idk)

Norman Mailer wrote:It is virtually not assimilable to our reason that a small lonely man felled a giant in the midst of his limousines, his legions, his throng, and his security. If such a non-entity destroyed the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, then a world of disporoportion engulfs us, and we live in a universe that it absurd.

Stephen King used that as the epigraph to his JFK-related book.

Aljazeera report on the raid that killed Bin Laden:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 37727.html

Interesting read, kinda puts to rest the theory about him dying via explosion as he attempted to blow up his compound when the soldiers arrived.

i don't know if they're conspiracy theories or actual facts at this point, but considering the US has created/permitted "attacks" as pretext for every war/engagement dating back to the Spanish American War, that makes me think 911 was another set-up as well... the documentary zietgiest makes a pretty compelling case, but i default to what others have already posted, that where i see the biggest hole in all conspiracy theories is the fact that nobody has leaked definitive information about these plots and the huge network of people that would have to know or be involved.

delving into the 911/War on Terror conspiracy a little, the components that make me the most suspicious are:

first and foremost, that there was a drill being orchestrated for the very scenario that was playing out (which also happened in the exact same fashion during the london bombing, and was also part of the boston marathon bombing).

secondly, the building coming down that was not struck by a plane and therefore was not burning which is the explanation for all the molten metal and the toppling of the towers.

thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

right. the rocket argument seems totally bogus as i've seen pictures of some debris myself, but it seems crazy to me that the plane ignites the way it does if it was just a typical plane. and there's still the "let's roll" plane in PA that vaporizes.

again, i don't believe this could really be some elaborate covert plot, but those three things just make no sense to me.

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

Says the employee of the military-industrial complex.

simple schoolboy wrote:

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

Says the employee of the military-industrial complex.

Yeah well... there are very few industries left in America where you get to make new things. Unless you count cell phone apps, narcissistic social networking websites, or exotic financial products.

http://www.sandiego6.com/story/details- ... e-20130708

How about this? Is our government killing journalists?

Doesn't seem too unlikely.

tommymctom wrote:http://www.sandiego6.com/story/details-of-reporter-hastings-death-remain-elusive-20130708

How about this? Is our government killing journalists?

Doesn't seem too unlikely.

of course they are.

tommymctom wrote:http://www.sandiego6.com/story/details-of-reporter-hastings-death-remain-elusive-20130708

How about this? Is our government killing journalists?

Doesn't seem too unlikely.

elliseamos wrote:

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

right. the rocket argument seems totally bogus as i've seen pictures of some debris myself, but it seems crazy to me that the plane ignites the way it does if it was just a typical plane. and there's still the "let's roll" plane in PA that vaporizes.

again, i don't believe this could really be some elaborate covert plot, but those three things just make no sense to me.

Could the speed of the planes at impact make the difference? Most crashes i think are attempted to be avoided or eased somehow so they would be going much slower as the try to make a crash landing, but the planes that hit the towers and the pentagon were sped up for the impact, and i think the PA crash picked up speed as the broke through the cockpit door and also crashed at a much higher speed.
So that could be the difference

elliseamos wrote:

broken iris wrote:

elliseamos wrote: thirdly, that the planes (in PA & at the pentagon specifically) completely disintegrated. look at this recent crash in SF, plane crashes typically leave debris (even though they've got jet fuel igniting). also, if the planes that struck the towers completely and totally combusted on impact, how does the passport of one of the terrorists turn up on top of the rubble for authorities to discover?

Just as an FYI, the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT completely disintegrate and my girlfriend at the time was working in one of the Crystal City office towers and saw the plane out of her office window shortly before impact.

right. the rocket argument seems totally bogus as i've seen pictures of some debris myself, but it seems crazy to me that the plane ignites the way it does if it was just a typical plane. and there's still the "let's roll" plane in PA that vaporizes.

again, i don't believe this could really be some elaborate covert plot, but those three things just make no sense to me.

The side of the Pentagon that was hit by the plane was re-enforced to survive a McVeigh style truck bomb, so the results of the impact would be different than almost any other comparable scenario. Former RM user "IEB!" and I had a long discussion about this on the old board, I think it went on for like 20 pages. Pretty good stuff in there as he was a "missile theory" believer that I was able to inject some doubt into.


Now AA587 is a different story. A former co-worker of mine worked on the coast guard team that assisted in the recovery effort and she was convinced it was an accidentally fired missile from a system hastily deployed to protect the city from another 9/11 style attack that brought down the plane. She was not the brightest bulb, we actually fired her because she couldn't handle even basic sys admin duties, but you never know.

okay, so assuming the good doctor has explained the planes.

why'd that one building, not struck by a plane, come crashing down in the exact same fashion? and, doesn't it seem odd that every time there's a drill there's also a terrorist attack?

elliseamos wrote:okay, so assuming the good doctor has explained the planes.

why'd that one building, not struck by a plane, come crashing down in the exact same fashion? and, doesn't it seem odd that every time there's a drill there's also a terrorist attack?

I don't remember reason was given, did they try to say it was from debris falling on it, or some secondary fire? I can't remember the explanation that was given

Yes, that building was also alight.

I've never understood the attraction of the "it was a missile not a plane" theories. If they were missiles then what about all of the civilian passengers on those planes?

My father gifted me a living social dealie for a local industrial arts taster program. We did welding, casting, and forging cutsie little take home projects such as candle holders, impractically large aluminum paper weights, and bracelets. As was evident in the forging class, steel becomes quite soft well before it becomes molten. I was hoping this would temper (te-hee) his truther leanings.

Regarding WTC7, I don't know much about it other than from "Loose Change" and the like, but if I recall correctly it did have a heating fuel tank or similar-type fuel tank that caught fire. Why the focus of conspiracy theories would gravitate towards this minor building I'm not sure but it has something to do with radio chatter about "pulling" which could either mean having the firefighters retreat or have it taken down in a controlled demolition. The latter is the most logical of course because taking down non-landmarks is a good way to carry out a false flag operation.

If only IEB were still here to school us.

elliseamos wrote:okay, so assuming the good doctor has explained the planes.

why'd that one building, not struck by a plane, come crashing down in the exact same fashion?

You're in Corduroy_Bimbo territory now.

Have you researched this? I mean really looked into it?

The answers are available, to anyone with some basic deductive reasoning skills.