southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickability.c...&partnerID=2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 F.E.H. A secret that big couldn't be kept. However, it does make me wanna invest in Reynolds Wrap - because all those tinfoil hat people need something to cover their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 From Sept 12, 2001 through today, I've always felt Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 From Sept 12, 2001 through today, I've always felt Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF. The only thing I disagree with is the date. From 9/11/01 I believed it was shot down. A very difficult decision needed to be made, and I believe President Bush ordered the plane to be shot down. I also would not care to second guess the decision and pray he finds peace with it. What other options where there? Allow it to crash into a target and kill many more innocent lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 The only thing I disagree with is the date. From 9/11/01 I believed it was shot down. A very difficult decision needed to be made, and I believe President Bush ordered the plane to be shot down. I also would not care to second guess the decision and pray he finds peace with it. What other options where there? Allow it to crash into a target and kill many more innocent lives? I agree. Shooting that plane down was the only option that made sense. What gets me is why the hell didn't the WTC plane get blasted from the sky? It's not like we didn't have time. The military was in stand down mode. They had to be. Especially referencing the "plane" that hit the Pentagon. Come on people ... we aren't that f***ing stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Especially referencing the "plane" that hit the Pentagon. Come on people ... we aren't that f***ing stupid. I agree about the plane being shot down. What do you think hit the Pentagon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I agree about the plane being shot down. What do you think hit the Pentagon? I am still believing a plane hit the Pentagon. The explanation for the hole, etc. seemed plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I agree about the plane being shot down. What do you think hit the Pentagon? It wasn't a plane. Did you ever see any pieces of plane wreckage? The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a plane. There is no surveillance film of the plane hitting the building. There is a picture showing the gaping hole in the Pentagon ... and there is a plastic computer moniter sitting on a filing cabinet next to the left side of the hole. Yet, we are supposed to believe that jet fuel caused the the WTC towers to fall (like a building being imploded for demolition, btw) by melting the steel girders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 O.K., so I will go along with the military shooting down the Penn. plane, but what are we saying hit the Pentagon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 It wasn't a plane. Did you ever see any pieces of plane wreckage? The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a plane. There is no surveillance film of the plane hitting the building. There is a picture showing the gaping hole in the Pentagon ... and there is a plastic computer moniter sitting on a filing cabinet next to the left side of the hole. Yet, we are supposed to believe that jet fuel caused the the WTC towers to fall (like a building being imploded for demolition, btw) by melting the steel girders? What happened then to the other missing plane? There is footage of a plane travelling on that path low near the Pentagon? Was that plane somehow diverted and forced into the ocean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 O.K., so I will go along with the military shooting down the Penn. plane, but what are we saying hit the Pentagon? Something that would penetrate but did not have a wide wingspan (see the hole and lack of wreckage) ... I don't know. Maybe a missile? You tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 What happened then to the other missing plane? There is footage of a plane travelling on that path low near the Pentagon? Was that plane somehow diverted and forced into the ocean? Are those people still missing? I don't know what happened to it/them ... I just know that hole in the Pentagon was not caused by a plane filled with jet fuel if the WTC was brought down by the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 It wasn't a plane. Did you ever see any pieces of plane wreckage? The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a plane. There is no surveillance film of the plane hitting the building. There is a picture showing the gaping hole in the Pentagon ... and there is a plastic computer moniter sitting on a filing cabinet next to the left side of the hole. Yet, we are supposed to believe that jet fuel caused the the WTC towers to fall (like a building being imploded for demolition, btw) by melting the steel girders? First let me say that I do believe the last plane was shot down by the US military. As for the Pentagon there are a couple things that make me believe it was a plane. First and foremost there are tons of eyewitness reports to a low flying plane cartwheeling into the building. Second, the Pentagon was designed to withstand a glancing blow from a 50's/60's nuclear explosion, a plane hitting at a high rate of speed wouldn't make the same damage as hitting a regular building. Third the Pentagon was made from Limestone from southern Indiana. Limestone does melt or burn like steel does. Fourth of course there are no pictures of the plane, because the plane was inside the pentagon, which is the most restricted building in the world. It is the spy capital of everywhere. Pictures from inside the building could compromise spy missions and lead to Americans deaths. Fifth, if the US did it, why? I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the military would blow up its own HQ. Sixth, to go along with #2 that section of the pentagon was recently remodled and upgraded to be more secure and safe. That same impact on a different section of the pentagon would have been much more deadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 First let me say that I do believe the last plane was shot down by the US military. As for the Pentagon there are a couple things that make me believe it was a plane. First and foremost there are tons of eyewitness reports to a low flying plane cartwheeling into the building. Second, the Pentagon was designed to withstand a glancing blow from a 50's/60's nuclear explosion, a plane hitting at a high rate of speed wouldn't make the same damage as hitting a regular building. Third the Pentagon was made from Limestone from southern Indiana. Limestone does melt or burn like steel does. Fourth of course there are no pictures of the plane, because the plane was inside the pentagon, which is the most restricted building in the world. It is the spy capital of everywhere. Pictures from inside the building could compromise spy missions and lead to Americans deaths. Fifth, if the US did it, why? I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the military would blow up its own HQ. Sixth, to go along with #2 that section of the pentagon was recently remodled and upgraded to be more secure and safe. That same impact on a different section of the pentagon would have been much more deadly. agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 First let me say that I do believe the last plane was shot down by the US military. As for the Pentagon there are a couple things that make me believe it was a plane. First and foremost there are tons of eyewitness reports to a low flying plane cartwheeling into the building. Second, the Pentagon was designed to withstand a glancing blow from a 50's/60's nuclear explosion, a plane hitting at a high rate of speed wouldn't make the same damage as hitting a regular building. Third the Pentagon was made from Limestone from southern Indiana. Limestone does melt or burn like steel does. Fourth of course there are no pictures of the plane, because the plane was inside the pentagon, which is the most restricted building in the world. It is the spy capital of everywhere. Pictures from inside the building could compromise spy missions and lead to Americans deaths. Fifth, if the US did it, why? I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the military would blow up its own HQ. Sixth, to go along with #2 that section of the pentagon was recently remodled and upgraded to be more secure and safe. That same impact on a different section of the pentagon would have been much more deadly. Ok ... I'll take it a point at a time. 1st: No logical response on my part. I can't answer that. 2nd: A plane full of Jet fuel would have melted that PC monitor if it would have melted stell girders. 3rd: The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a jet plane. 4th: I was talking about survailance films taken outside the building. None that were released to the press showed what actually hit the building. 5th: How much money is the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us making off the Afghan/Iraq wars? 6th: There were no wing sections outside the building. The hole in the building was not big enough to allow the wings to pass through it. Regardless of the upgrade, there is no explanation for that. I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just don't trust those SOB's. There is more going on than they telling the American people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Sixth, to go along with #2 that section of the pentagon was recently remodled and upgraded to be more secure and safe. That same impact on a different section of the pentagon would have been much more deadly. Maybe it was just a test to see if they built it up to code? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Ok ... I'll take it a point at a time. 1st: No logical response on my part. I can't answer that. 2nd: A plane full of Jet fuel would have melted that PC monitor if it would have melted stell girders. 3rd: The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a jet plane. 4th: I was talking about survailance films taken outside the building. None that were released to the press showed what actually hit the building. 5th: How much money is the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us making off the Afghan/Iraq wars? 6th: There were no wing sections outside the building. The hole in the building was not big enough to allow the wings to pass through it. Regardless of the upgrade, there is no explanation for that. I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just don't trust those SOB's. There is more going on than they telling the American people. I agree that the hole is suspiciously small, and the lack of photographic evidence is troubling. I wonder if all the jet fuel ignited and where it was. Plane #1 and #2 flown into the WTC. No time to react to the #2 plane and really no where to shoot it down at. Plane #3 Pennsyvania, IMHO shot down by the military or, at a minimum, forced down by the terrorists when they decided they couldn't reach their target. Plane #4 Questionable. Probably in the Pentagon. Some doubt. BUt no better explaination in my mind than a plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I agree that the hole is suspiciously small, and the lack of photographic evidence is troubling. I wonder if all the jet fuel ignited and where it was. Plane #1 and #2 flown into the WTC. No time to react to the #2 plane and really no where to shoot it down at. Plane #3 Pennsyvania, IMHO shot down by the military or, at a minimum, forced down by the terrorists when they decided they couldn't reach their target. Plane #4 Questionable. Probably in the Pentagon. Some doubt. BUt no better explaination in my mind than a plane. I'm gonna have to do some research. I recall reading where we actually had planes in the air, close enough to intercept number 2 at before it reached the WTC. I don't have a clue where I read that, though. I'll search while at work tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 Ok ... I'll take it a point at a time. 1st: No logical response on my part. I can't answer that. 2nd: A plane full of Jet fuel would have melted that PC monitor if it would have melted stell girders. 3rd: The hole in the Pentagon was smaller than a jet plane. 4th: I was talking about survailance films taken outside the building. None that were released to the press showed what actually hit the building. 5th: How much money is the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us making off the Afghan/Iraq wars? 6th: There were no wing sections outside the building. The hole in the building was not big enough to allow the wings to pass through it. Regardless of the upgrade, there is no explanation for that. I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just don't trust those SOB's. There is more going on than they telling the American people. -I have not seen the specific picture you are talking about, so I'll let that one go. -I thought the hole was plenty big when I saw the pictures of the cranes working next to the pentagon afterwards. Are there any difinative measurements that exsist of the Pentagon, the hole, or both? -Who knows why they have never released that footage. The government has always been sercretive. Its hard to tell if that means something here or not. -Do you think the Pentagon had to be hit to make the case for a war? If they only hit the WTC, wouldn't that have been enough? I don't think the Pentagon made a big difference in the cause for war. -I do think it is strange that no pictures of debris exsist outisde of the building. I am not quite sure why that is, honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 I'm gonna have to do some research. I recall reading where we actually had planes in the air, close enough to intercept number 2 at before it reached the WTC. I don't have a clue where I read that, though. I'll search while at work tonight. It depends on who you believe. According the gov, they were seconds too late. According to conspiracty theorists, they should have gotten to the second plane if they wanted, and easily gotten the 3rd plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 -I have not seen the specific picture you are talking about, so I'll let that one go. -I thought the hole was plenty big when I saw the pictures of the cranes working next to the pentagon afterwards. Are there any difinative measurements that exsist of the Pentagon, the hole, or both? -Who knows why they have never released that footage. The government has always been sercretive. Its hard to tell if that means something here or not. -Do you think the Pentagon had to be hit to make the case for a war? If they only hit the WTC, wouldn't that have been enough? I don't think the Pentagon made a big difference in the cause for war. -I do think it is strange that no pictures of debris exsist outisde of the building. I am not quite sure why that is, honestly. I'll try and find the picture with the PC monitor. No promises though. It's been a while since I saw it. I also saw pictures of the hole in the Pentagon, the dimensions of a jet super imposed over it. There was no way that plane could be turned to get into that hole without leaving debris outside. No way, no how. As for the footage ... they "release" footage but said they never captured the plane either approaching or hitting the building. Just the Pentagon with, then without an intact wall. I don't buy it. Not at the f***ing Pentagon. I think the WTC and Pentagon were symbolic choices. The financial and military centers of our nation. Overkill? Maybe ... but maybe not. I don't have all the answers. Just a whole helluva a lot of questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 According to the 9/11 commission, they were several minutes away from any of the planes before they all hit the ground. Or the buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Picture of damage - too big and I didn't feel like downloading and resizing. I never realized it, but I agre with Yasny about the damaged aread looking smaller than one would have expected for a jet hitting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 I think the WTC and Pentagon were symbolic choices. The financial and military centers of our nation. Overkill? Maybe ... but maybe not. I don't have all the answers. Just a whole helluva a lot of questions. I will wholeheartly agree with you there... I whole heartedly believe that the US shot down the plane in Shanksville. But to me that means the US was not involved in the conspiracy to kill their own people. If they wanted to crash planes into their buildings in order to start a war, why would they shoot down one of them, and then they say that they didn't shoot it down? That doesn't make any sense to me. I think if they meant to attack the Pentagon, they would have either let Flight 93 crash into where ever it was going to have the full effect on the public opinion, or the US would have announced that they heroically shot down 93 therefore saving all of the lives and such from where ever the plane was going. Which would have at least temporarily thrown the spotlight off of the US government, because they made an "effort" to stop the attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 According to the 9/11 commission, they were several minutes away from any of the planes before they all hit the ground. Or the buildings. Whatever and whereever I read this thing, after plane #1 hit the WTC ... we were close enough to get to the WTC before #2 hit. There are probably somewhat acceptable explanations for that though. However ..... the "plane" that hit the Pentagon went all the way to Ohio before turning around toward Washington. There is a USAF base right outside of Washington ... Ramstein? ... where Air Force One always lands ... why the hell were those pitots not scrambled after two planes hit the WTC? I knew it terrorists 3 seconds after plane number #2 hit the WTC. Yet, we have this nonresponsive plane heading toward the capitol of the United States and do not scrambled a local air farce base to at the bare minimum protect DC? They (our gov't) knew EXACTLY what, when, why and how everytjing was happening. Too many questions without logical answers. Wait! .... Someone's knocking on my door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.