I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Sep 15th, 2004 10:48 AM

Ant10708

So what is the theory behind the one that crashed in penn?

Sep 15th, 2004 09:51 AM

Spectre X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

So if that plane didnt hit the pentagon, where is it? what happened to it?

Even if it DID hit the Pentagon, where was it? Did you see any wreckage belonging to a 757? I sure as hell didn't, and a plane as large as a 757 would at least have left huge chunks of hull littered around the crash site.

Sep 15th, 2004 09:24 AM

ranxer

good question dole. i suggest you ask the bush administration, or write your local paper. but you won't get an answer either way. If it didn't reach it's destination, it didn't hit the pentagon, and it wasn't just arab hijackers but partly inside job then we're dealing with something akin to terrorism but something much more cold blooded than a suicide bomber.
it's a massive crime that we need to unravel but many people are trying to stick to analyzing the official story and avoiding the 'well then, what happened to the passengers?' questions.

Sep 15th, 2004 06:54 AM

Dole

So if that plane didnt hit the pentagon, where is it? what happened to it?

Sep 15th, 2004 02:55 AM

davinxtk

Yeah, nobody's paying attention to the post I linked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:53 pm, I

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.

Not that I expect anyone to pay any more attention to me NOW.

Sep 14th, 2004 10:06 PM

ranxer

Quote:

is it likely that there were terrorists planning to hijack planes but we knew of it in advance and took advantage of the situation and attacked ourselves.

i do have theories about what actually happened but they are just theories.. i don't really want to go off too far into what i think happened, my point is that the official story is a lie. the ideas that that lie leads to go off in all kinds of directions.
we have information like the northwoods documents that actually discuss attacking ourselves with blame being placed on enemies that we would like to get rid of etc. so there is precedence for this stuff but again.. i'm trying to stick to breaking down the lie that the administration has been telling.

much of what i think will be written off as conspiracy theory.. but just like racism or anti-semitism the conspiracy card is used to shut people up. even the anti-bushite left is keeping a lid on 9/11 by calling questioners conspiracy nuts and refusing to look at the questions. we've got a loong way to go before these questions are even thought about in the mainstream press and i find it a damn shame because the questions are so blaringly obvious to many people.

why would the bush administration refuse investigations or questioning about 9/11? just to mess with suspicious people? i don't get it. why did bush appoint henry kissenger to head the investigation? why wouldnt bush testify by himself? why was his and cheneys testimony not recorded and notes by the questioners confiscated after the interview? do you really think that 9/11 investigations open holes in our national security? it sure stinks to my nose. but then again i come from a background of not trusting 70% of what comes out of our corporate governments press releases because as we all know they are politicians and as some of us know they are beholden to large corporations. Why is it that the right wing can't trust the government to dish out healthcare yet they can trust the government to keep a suitcase nuke out of the country? oh yea, and why do 49% of New Yorkers believe that the bush admin knew of the attack and consciously did nothing?
damn, what a mess.

[/quote]

Sep 14th, 2004 07:39 PM

Preechr

1st parargraph:

The damage done to the Pentagon was much less than that to the WTC towers, though the Pentagon was also struck with a plane. I'd find it much more likely that there were explosives planted ahead of time in the Towers than I would the Pentagon was hit by a missle. It's possible that a "contractor" working on a "remodeling project" within the WTC snuck in a bunch of explosives, kinda like the terrorists did at that Russian School.

Sep 14th, 2004 07:25 PM

Ant10708

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

I'd find it much more likely that, since the damage done to the Pentagon was so relatively minor, there were explosives planted ahead of time in the Towers, possibly by a contractor working on a remodeling project.

I just find the idea that our government, or anybody else's, could pull off any sort of massive conspiracy without detection silly, especially when I figure in for all the obviously stupid things various "plugged-in" folks have tried to get away with and been caught at.

The first paragraph confuses me just because it doesnt seem like the different parts of the sentence fit properly together.

And it hasn't gone undetected! Ran and others have discovered.

I do think Burbanks theory is more probable then Cheny and his oil buddies doing it.

I also don't think the FBI confiscating tapes is really suspicious. I mean our government likes to keep incidents kinda secret. I mean for gods sake Lincolns assassination files are still classified so theres no chance we will ever see kennedys. But I am interested in these types of theories but right now the US story makes the most sense when put together so that why I asked Ran on what he thinks about each thing.

Maybe Lincoln never died and was frozen and the terrorists got him and 911 was his idea.

Sep 14th, 2004 06:35 PM

Preechr

Possible, Yes. Possible to keep secret, doubtful.

Eventually all information is available. Unfortunately, the concept of National Security has expanded to shroud anything anyone with some sort of pull wants to keep quiet, so it'll be a long time before we know exactly why the WTC towers fell, though I doubt our own government had anything at all to do with it.

I'd find it much more likely that, since the damage done to the Pentagon was so relatively minor, there were explosives planted ahead of time in the Towers, possibly by a contractor working on a remodeling project.

I just find the idea that our government, or anybody else's, could pull off any sort of massive conspiracy without detection silly, especially when I figure in for all the obviously stupid things various "plugged-in" folks have tried to get away with and been caught at.

Sep 14th, 2004 06:14 PM

mburbank

Is it possible we accidentally fired a missile in the vicinty of the pentagon (some pilot or ground crew scared shitless jumping the gun?) and lumped the balme onto the already guilty Al Quaeda rather than admit that during the height of the terrorist ttack we bombed our own Pentagon?

Sep 14th, 2004 06:08 PM

Preechr

You should also consider that our "intelligence" has never been good enough to actually predict ANYTHING, Ant. The CIA's predecessor was formed after Pearl Harbor in order to predict such future events. So far, the list of events that surprised the CIA is pretty long, including (hardly a complete list) stuff like China's involvement in Korea and Vietnam, the Berlin Wall's construction and destruction, the fall of the USSR... oh yeah... and that there would be no WMD stockpiles just sitting around in Iraq when our troops arrived to flower parades.

Sep 14th, 2004 05:22 PM

Ant10708

So Ran or Spectre is it likely that there were terrorists planning to hijack planes but we knew of it in advance and took advantage of the situation and attacked ourselves. Because that would atleast explain why our "intelligence" was so bad it didn't stop the hijackers.

Sep 14th, 2004 05:17 PM

ranxer

yehaw, great compilation of info! man, i hope this stuff gets some press before the election.

Sep 14th, 2004 10:55 AM

Spectre X

http://www.freedomunderground.org/me....php#Preloader

Sep 14th, 2004 10:52 AM

Spectre X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

Quote:

I find it odd that the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon punched a very, very clean hole into the D or C or whatever ring of the Pentagon.

An almost perfectly round hole of about twelve feet or something in diameter.

And that Eyewitnesses never saw a plane, and reported hearing something that sounded like a missile.

Much as I love conspiracies, there is a lot of guff talked about this. The fact is, there are TONS of eyewiynesses on the public record who saw a plane flying incredibly low towards the pentagon, and whilst there was a small neat hole, the plane impacted at 500 miles an hour, with all its fule carried in the wings. The wings incinerate and are pushed back on to the body of the plane on impact. I am not saying there wasn't something weird going on, but I think its reasonable to presume a plane did hit that building.

I also find it extremely odd that thousands upon thousands of galons of airplane fuel didn't turn the crash site into a gigantic sea of fire, as Ranxer pointed out.

And have you seen the hole? A 757 would never, under any circumstances, fit through that hole unless it would have been stretched out like spaghetti.

Sep 14th, 2004 09:21 AM

ranxer

Quote:

The wings incinerate and are pushed back on to the body of the plane on impact.

I've seen this statement that the wings were pushed back more than a few times now and i find it astounding that anyone could believe that traveling between 300 and 500 miles per hour, the wings, loaded with fuel, could do anthing but blow up and do some damage to the pentagon. you seriously believe they didn't do any damage to the building on impact??! how the hell could they fold back at that speed? or how would they incinerate AND fold back then not leave hardly a scratch?

who was your gradeschool science teacher, a cartoon maybe?

really.. the story makes the building seem like it was a giant vacuum that just sucked the plane into the hole.

i think the whole 9/11 attack and the belief in the official story is a testament to how bad our science education is in America.

as for witnesses, i've read many conflicting reports.. some say there are 'tons' of witnesses that a passenger plane flew by them and into the pentagon but i could only find a few.. the highway nearby was suposedly full of people .. there should be more than a few witnesses, but i havn't seen them coming forward. [/quote]

Sep 13th, 2004 10:14 PM

Ant10708

So Spectre where did you hear that eyewitnesses didn't see a plane?

Sep 13th, 2004 06:10 AM

Dole

Quote:

Sep 12th, 2004 09:09 PM

Ant10708

Maybe Cheny and Bin laden and the oil business teamed up with the semi secreat society Skulls and Bones. That means no matter who wins its one of their guys!!!!

Sep 12th, 2004 08:56 PM

Ant10708

I seriously think a UFO(aliens

) is more likely then Bush firing a missile at the pentagon.

Sep 12th, 2004 08:43 PM

the_dudefather

aparently the reason for the small hole is that most of the plane crumped or incinirated or something. and because of the strength of the walls it was forced through the small opening caused by the front of the place. but the fbi taking tapes away is suspicious...

it seems that the pentagon is all but forgotten as well, especially when compared to the WTC.

but i all realism, there probobly is no grassy knoll (as there wasnt for JFK as it has been proven. or is that what they want us to think

) in this case, consiriousies are probobly far less likely than you would want to belive.

Sep 12th, 2004 06:55 PM

ranxer

it is odd that we havn't seen ANY major media info on the wargames on 9-11. there's many a theory about why there were wargames going on that day yet very little info.. anyway, from what i've heard, it was Nico Haupt that outed the story via the global free press which was picked up by Michael Ruppert ..
buried in this link are several from the global free press.. i don't know much about them but here's the link:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-...on.cgi.14.html
Ruppert on the subject.. again via global free press:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...ipod_fema.html

for another interesting look at 9-11 checkout the 'scientific' view at:
http://physics911.org/net/[/url]

Sep 12th, 2004 06:18 AM

davinxtk

Quote:

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

This is the first I've heard about war games, but nothing about that day has ever sat quite right with me. It will go down as a bigger 'conspiracy theory' than the JFK assassination, and none of us will probably ever find out what really happened.

Like I said... http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=14408

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre X

A missile is a fast swoosh, while an airplane is a loooooong and very loud. Commercial airliners don't just sneak up on people and then crash, no, you can hear an airplane coming from miles away.

Also, why was there none of this action?
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/308/

Sep 12th, 2004 04:25 AM

Spectre X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ant10708

What does a missile sound like?

And most people know the difference between the sound of a missile and an airplane being dived into a building?

How are they eyewitnesses if they didn't see the plane? They didn't see a missile either. Maybe it was a UFO. :/

A missile is a fast swoosh, while an airplane is a loooooong and very loud. Commercial airliners don't just sneak up on people and then crash, no, you can hear an airplane coming from miles away.

Sep 11th, 2004 05:10 PM

I have always said that the terrorists and the aliens were in cahoots. Didn't I always say that?

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off