StarGateWars Forums

As I said, just draw your own conclussions, but for god's sake, don't just ignore the information or shun it all together just because someone else is saying "CONSPIRACY!". That is childish and an unrealistic way of actually trying to understand something and find the truth.

I will say it once again; I will have a debate about the facts, the details - but when I read something like this:

Not over yet there is an election coming up, think they wont do or ALLOW or fund something else horrific to maintain republican control. PLEASE

OIL OIL OIL

There isn't going to be a debate about facts, because the assumptions he has already leapt to are so radically different than mine.

It'd be like debating the morality of H.itler's actions, with someone who presupposes the inferiority of all but the Arians - you've got to tackle the underlying issue before you even get to the 'facts', because otherwise they won't mean anything, he won't deny the holocaust, he'll celebrate it.

Same thing here. For a great number of the ones posting, (you excluded I believe), the 'facts' are a means to an end - and whatever truth there might be is getting hidden because they are not interested in it, except as a way to vindicate X or tear down Y.

Like script kiddies Copy-pasting code to make a game, rather than learning the code itself.

-----------------------

He's talking about the hole, not the entire section.........

The hole size didn't/doesn't surprise me - not only was the Pentagon reinforced against impact - but other examples of plane crashes bear out similarly ratioed damage. The Empire State most notably.
Either way, I must ask - what are we suggesting did hit the Pentagon?
A rocket? Detonation charges inside the building? Shaped charges inside the plane?

http://www.911review.com/attack/pentago ... hole11.jpg
Now, if that had looked like the picture Angnoch posted, I would be a little concerned

Hmmm lets see

Osama Bin laden is one of over 40 children. His father created a very big construction company in Saudi Arabia. It is true that George Bush Senior had contact with the father of Osama Bin Laden, not Osama himself. Osama was always a radical. He went to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, he wanted to lead a Muslim coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and his organization was behind the attacks on the US Embassy,(I forget what country)

I can not see how people don't think a Radical Muslim who has already attacked the United States did not attack the United States.
Also you can not disregard all of the phone calls made to loves one that were on the hijacked planes. I am sick of people making 9/11 out to be a conspiracy.

Angnoch wrote:...I would say that this hole is more than big enough for a plane

Where is the plane fuselage? wings? tail?

if you look at plane crash photos you see wreckage. where is it?

Angnoch wrote:

Åpophis ™ wrote:The 9/11 we know who did it, but who ordered them to do it/funded them, is the thing I wonder of...

LoL you belive i'm one of those who believe in ALL conspiracies ?
No I'm not, I just can put on for example the laden plane, the impact on pentagon, the strange leaving of CIA boss after his remindings again&again there was PROVES of WMD in Irak while the pics were like 12 years old and was proved not any was there...
What I believe in 100% is iraq conspiracy, for 9/11 one, I'm skeptical, coz of especially the laden plane

now sorry i got to sleep damint

that alone tells me you know nothing of the American gov. the CIA was hampered during the Clinton administration and during George W. Bush it was completely rendered useless. More than 30% of the section chiefs resigned their posts in protest of the cut-backs they were forced to accept.
The Laden family and Bush family have had ties to each other for years lest you forget that Osama was disinherited by his family so nothing suspicious there.
The hole in the Pentagon was not big enough for a plane to have crashed into it huh? I didnt realize that a MILITARY FALLOUT SHELTER, which is what the Pentagon was originally designed for to survive a nuclear war, could not take a plave hitting one section of it and I would say that this hole is more than big enough for a plane [imghttp://www.apfn.org/images/pentagon-9-11.jpg[/img]

Did republican gave ya a cookie for saying it frederick?

Oh and the four pics prove it all ha ha

I dunno Pops I guess I could go to the cabinet and give myself a cookie but if you didnt notice my post had nothing to do with Republican/Democrat lines so I dont get where you are drawing that conclusion from. Now please if we are going to argue this on a factual basis then please refrain from using fallacies they just litter an arguement with useless stuff.

Now Spacey the pic I showed you was an after the fact pic during the clean up stage so the plane would have been removed but despite you guys saying that you would be able to see wreckage of the plane have you seen a plane hit a brick wall all that was left were small pieces at the largest a 2x2 square of metal now im not saying that is the biggest piece of the plane they found but first you guys say that a plane could not make the hole then you back pedal and say it could but where is the plane the plane very well may have been almost completely destroyed in the crash and resulting fire

@ Xeno, I believe you refered back to ol'h.itler yet again. You seem to think you are somehow going for the throat of the issue, when I see it as simply dodging it all together. You refuse to talk about the events about that day and instead draw your line in the sand exclaiming how that'd be like losing the battle because you'd be playing by my terms. You 'talk' about addressing the real issues and facts in question but I haven't seen much of that, only now are you talking about what struck the pentagon and continuing to bable on about h.itler and the airian brotherhood. You are living in a box and thats one thing I'm telling you to accept. Thank me later. As for the algebric equation I posed, I believe you also said it was the equivalent of me copying the code for one game to make my own. Well, considering I took your original example and gave an even more detailed version thats actually coherent to my arguement. I believe you just insulted yourself as well in the process.

As for the pentagon, indeed I won't deny the amount of damage on the building itself. To take a page from your technique for debate Xeno, that would be like saying aliens are living in the whitehouse but no one sees them. See, I can make myself sound like an idiot too.

Rather, I would put forth the wings were made of titanium which, I shouldn't have to say, is a very strong material. No matter what kind of building they would have hit at five hundred miles per hour, they would undoubtedly do superior damage in contrast to what we saw at the pentagon that day. I believe the fuselage wouldn't have gotten past the second ring however. But (whatever) hit there obviously had enough 'explosive' force to knock people off their feet and blow a concussive hole through all three rings disipating and getting smaller from the point of impact.

If you somehow think our government isn't capable of hiding people or doing things without our knowing it, forging death certificates and dental records, paying people off to keep their mouths shut, buying experts to counter-argue other experts. You must have never heard of the CIA then. I'm not even going to jump into that though, because there is no proof to suggest the CIA actually had anything to do with 9/11.

But I can see what you are constantly refering to when you suggest there are all too many directions the evidence could lead.

@ Angnoch. I believe the point of arguement has never been retracted as you claim it has. It's been maintained that the hole is much too small for a 757 and it's one hundred and twenty five foot wingspan to have done no other damage besides the hole to the building which punched through not one not two but three rings of the pentagon. That is the entire arguement, anything said by others to entertain your notion of what happened is only done in the sense that you will come to the same conclussion.

So in hindsight, taking what you just said into consideration, why would you bring up the fact that a 757 hitting a brickwall would tear the air liner to pieces, when you're also suggesting that it somehow still had enough kinetic force to punch through not just one brickwall but six of them and the corresponding concrete and steel around them. Why would you do something like that, and still not see how ignorant the arguement is to maintain?

Spacey wrote:

Angnoch wrote:...I would say that this hole is more than big enough for a plane

Where is the plane fuselage? wings? tail?

if you look at plane crash photos you see wreckage. where is it?

I agree with Spacey...

1. There is no sign of damage done by wings, only the body of the plane
2. tons of high octane petrol used in planes = massive fire + high temperatures...I dont see almost any ash here, signs of fire. Plus: Ive seen pics of PC monitors being right next to crash site (in fact within it), without even turning black (not speaking of being burned)
3. A similar sized plane managed to pull down a building like WTC tower...and only ope block of Pentagon (not whol, ther are still some remnants, although the pplane that crashes into WTC actualy flew through it)thats strange, too...

That's a rocket i said, not a plane
They overestimated size of the "weapon", voluntarly, to dramatize situation, and also show the Pentagon is ultra resistant to anything that hits it (at least more than other buildings)

This thread only shows how media influence ppl. Americans suuport american gov and believe that those were terrorist attacks...
Non americans have a different and neutral stance and are willing to believe (we all only believe, noone knows exactly what happened there) that this might not be as it was presented in media...
BTW: I ran through the thread and would like to add this:
- Bush doesnt have to be behind 9/11. He definitely is not clever enough to do so. Noone is. If its some1 from US, than it has to be some1 working incognito (ppl from CIA e.g.)...
- Killing some1 that says that this is a conspiracy only proves his words...
- You will never get to know the truth - noone dares to tell you, it might lead to sth bigger and worse than killing of 3000 innocent peole (may they rest in peace)...thats diplomacy and politics (war is follow-up of the policy, in a different way OfC), policy is not moral, so it doesnt mean that its always about speaking the truth...
And there are some Qs without As in this thread:
- How come there are more and more theories about 9/11 attacks emerging? If it was simply som sick-minded bull worked out by some bunch of school kids, it woudlnt survive that long...
- Why did US really entered Iraq? WMD were not the reason (only a "decoy")
- Are all the ppl that are after Osama totally lame? Its almost 6 years and they didnt manage to catch him? Where the hell is he? On Mars?

MajorLeeHurts wrote:cmon guys stop watching American Idol for a minute and define Manifest Destiny these plans have been in place for 50 years or more. Bush Jr is just a puppet.
Not over yet there is an election coming up, think they wont do or ALLOW or fund something else horrific to maintain republican control. PLEASE

OIL OIL OIL

Ask the folks in the gulf coast as they watch the government take there destroyed homes for 1.69 in taxes owed and begin building refineries.

oh cmon!!!

everyone brings up Oil, but what in the world did invading iraq help us with oil. Oil's been disrupted hence the huge gas prices, what possible reason did that help our oil dependency by invading the third or something largest oil producer in the world and hurting their production capabilities to feed out dependency.

As for other points about 9/11. Xeno your asking for facts, and while I agree with you that theres no conspiracy theres also a lack of facts seeing as everyone who was really an eye witness is now dead. So to ask for facts when the key point to facts, eye witnesses are dead theres a distinct LACK of facts.

As for the conspiracy. I think it can't be simply BECAUSE there were mistakes, a highly trained united states speical ops team with three planes and government approval could have killed far more then three thousand (Not that this tragedy is small pickings.) They could have crashed into more crowded buildings, maybe even crashed down broadway or something that could kill a HUGE amount and even then if Iraq was in the plan why did they not lay down evidence of Iraqi involvement. Get some former Iraqi's in there, get some funding from Saadam or one of his sons, something firm and Bush would still have 100% approval ratings for fighting a war against someone who attacked us. Instead there was no link and his approval ratings are going down.

As for Osama. Osama is in pakistan a nuclear nation, Pakistan has told us that any military operation over the Pakistani border will result in war. Unlike Iraq Pakistan has confirmed nuclear weapons so Osama is on the run, but far easier to stay hidden from the probably corrupt, inept, or misinformed Pakistani forces if their even looking having more problems on their hands.

Tal_Rasha wrote:This thread only shows how media influence ppl. Americans suuport american gov and believe that those were terrorist attacks... Not all Americans support the government but do you honestly believe that this was NOT a terrorist attack, by definition a terrorist attack is made to simply cause terror not gain political clout because it is the weakest form of persuasion by arguing about this we are giving terrorists exactly what they want we are spreading false information and propagating lies causing more fear
Non americans have a different and neutral stance and are willing to believe (we all only believe, noone knows exactly what happened there) that this might not be as it was presented in media... since when do non-americans have a neutral stance? Everyone no matter where they are has a biased stance and arguing otherwise is completely ridiculous, for example I could say that the French are cowards because of their actions in WWII they just let a certain German-leader-whose-name-I-cannot-post-on-the-forums walk in and take over completely ignoring the fact that if they had attempted it all of France would have burned and the fact that they fought underground and ignoring all that would be the same thing you are doing by ignoring the facts of 9/11
BTW: I ran through the thread and would like to add this:
- Bush doesnt have to be behind 9/11. He definitely is not clever enough to do so. Noone is. If its some1 from US, than it has to be some1 working incognito (ppl from CIA e.g.)... Bush is most assuredly one of the more intelligent leaders in the world he is just a terrible public speaker and what would America stand to gain by causing this? 3k dead American civilians even more over in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- Killing some1 that says that this is a conspiracy only proves his words... how does this proove anyones words and who was killed?
- You will never get to know the truth - noone dares to tell you, it might lead to sth bigger and worse than killing of 3000 innocent peole (may they rest in peace)...thats diplomacy and politics (war is follow-up of the policy, in a different way OfC), policy is not moral, so it doesnt mean that its always about speaking the truth... politics has never been about morals and truth telling and war is a fact of human existence as long as we remain ignorant of other people we will war nothing will change that until people can accept others without question
And there are some Qs without As in this thread:
- How come there are more and more theories about 9/11 attacks emerging? If it was simply som sick-minded bull worked out by some bunch of school kids, it woudlnt survive that long... First Amendment rights allow freedom of speech, right to protest etc.... therefore it would be unconstitutional to remove his theory no one ever removed any of the Kennedy conspiracy theories this one is no different
- Why did US really entered Iraq? WMD were not the reason (only a "decoy") Plain and simple the US entered Iraq to oust Saddam and free the Iraqi people who had been oppressed for generations I am not saying this was a smart move or a stupid move just stating that is the truth to the best of my knowledge now I agree talk about WMDs although believable at first MOST OF THE UN BELIEVED IRAQ HAD WMDs was wrong to have that be the main reason we were going in although ignoring UN sanctions is against the "rules" America just happens to be one of the only countries able to enforce those "rules"
- Are all the ppl that are after Osama totally lame? Its almost 6 years and they didnt manage to catch him? Where the hell is he? On Mars? If we knew where he was then he would have been caught but my belief and I stress my belief is that he is in Pakistan hidden in the mountains near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan

my responses are bolded


if you want a conspiracy to talk about talk about a shooter on the grassy knoll 9/11 is a certified terrorist attack against INNOCENT PEOPLE

That picture is after the demolition to start the repair work.

This picture is much closer to the time of impact (maybe a half-hour later)
http://www.911review.com/attack/pentago ... hole11.jpg
^ Clicky

----------------
@Nicholai Brocov; I am going to assume you misunderstood me - because comments such as -
"As for the algebric equation I posed, I believe you also said it was the equivalent of me copying the code for one game to make my own."
- Clearly fly in the face of what I said.

The Xeno wrote:For a great number of the ones posting, (you excluded I believe),

Further, I fail to see how asking question such as:
"Either way, I must ask - what are we suggesting did hit the Pentagon?
A rocket? Detonation charges inside the building? Shaped charges inside the plane? "

and stating things like:
"...other examples of plane crashes bear out similarly ratioed damage. The Empire State most notably."

- constitute 'dodging the issue'.


============================

they would undoubtedly do superior damage in contrast to what we saw at the pentagon that day.

If you are speaking of damage in terms of the size of the hole, and not the depth - then I disagree. Quite the contrary, I would think the bigger the impact speed and mass the smaller the 'frontal' destruction relative to the depth of the hole.

I lack any sort of technical terms, so bear with me - but it seems to me, that by the time we get penetration of three buildings, we aren't going to be looking at a projectile that has mushroomed - it must have held it's integrity to penetrate so far - like a bullet. It would make perfect sense then that if it was an aircraft, the exterior damage would not be an entire collapsed section of the first building, but something similar to what we find.

An explosion has far less precision, unless it is a shaped charge - which is where my question about what we are substituting for Jihadist's and a 757 come in.

---------------------------

It would follow of course, in the tower impacts, that if a jumbojet could get that much penetration on ground level against a hardened structure, it would have done significant damage to the internals of the towers.

It's been maintained that the hole is much too small for a 757 and it's one hundred and twenty five foot wingspan to have done no other damage besides the hole to the building which punched through not one not two but three rings of the pentagon.

If we look at the Empire State crash, which is (I will gladly admit) as much a stretch as comparing the tower fires to the Madrid building fire - we see a similar scaling, the same with crash tests.
I would assume The wings simply lack enough mass to create any real damage compared to the significantly heavier fuselage which has a much greater footprint in terms of depth.



<selfedit>
Pic should be fixed... working? <_<

I cant see your pic Xeno

right click the word image and then view image