The sad thing is that I will start to be attacked for this, instead of the attackers reading and seeing the light, how does the saying go? “there’s no one more blind than the one who doesn’t want to see” something like that…
Maybe it was a UFO that attacked the Pentagon. Really the government knows all about them but they cover it up because they need to keep the hysteria down. We even have one in Nevada, that’s what all our technology is based on. Seriously. Doesn’t everyone know that by now and if you disagree your an idiot.
Wonder how long this will take to get accepted as a well known fact by conspiracy trolls.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The sad thing is that I will start to be attacked for this, instead of the attackers reading and seeing the light, how does the saying go? “there’s no one more blind than the one who doesn’t want to see” something like that…[/quote]
What’s sad is that you think a 40 yr. old brainstroming session, which resulted in no action, is relevent today.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The sad thing is that I will start to be attacked for this, instead of the attackers reading and seeing the light, how does the saying go? “there’s no one more blind than the one who doesn’t want to see” something like that…[/quote]
The defense department wastes time and money investigating and developing plans for thousands of ludicrous scenarios.
This is a far cry from blowing up the Pentagon and claiming a plane crashed into it.
Your quote fits you very well as you refuse to see reality.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The sad thing is that I will start to be attacked for this, instead of the attackers reading and seeing the light, how does the saying go? “there’s no one more blind than the one who doesn’t want to see” something like that…
What’s sad is that you think a 40 yr. old brainstroming session, which resulted in no action, is relevent today. [/quote]
It is rellevant today because it illustrates the pattern of thinking that goes on behind closed doors.
Would you think it was irrelewant if you found out that your parents had a murder planned for you in an “if” scenario if they needed money from your life policy?
Even if it did not happen you would question the mentality and psychological disposition of those people. That very pattern of thought is already that of someone you can never trust.
lol, I knew it…
Some people are so quick to throw out any conspiracy theory.
It makes me wonder why they are so quick to make these theories look like paranoid, wacko ideas, instead of acknowledging that they could happen, but there’s not enough proof to say it is true.
Hmmmmm…maybe they know more than they want others to know…
Question everything (including the validity of these conspiracy theories).
[quote]Gregus wrote:
It is rellevant today because it illustrates the pattern of thinking that goes on behind closed doors.
Would you think it was irrelewant if you found out that your parents had a murder planned for you in an “if” scenario if they needed money from your life policy?
Even if it did not happen you would question the mentality and psychological disposition of those people. That very pattern of thought is already that of someone you can never trust.
[/quote]
Good point!
Good point.
On a side note, I still want to know who was holding the camera when we SUPPOSEDLY landed on the moon.
(I can’t believe how many people fell for that one)
Kidding asside, I wouldn’t put it past our govt. to cover anything up.
Well i think it could be more of trying to save at least a little face in front of the world…Maybe.
Oh Shit, You know, it just hit me about who might have been holding that camera, shit this is gonna screw with me now, I mean Armstrong could not have layed the first steps on the moon if the cameraman had to get out to film him gettgin out, right, right? thanks bro, thanks.[/quote]
There was a remote camera mounted on the outside of the lunar lander that was focused on the descent ladder to film Neil Armstrong as he stepped down onto the moon. It was mounted on a arm, that he deployed prior to opening the hatch and stepping out.
This link gives a picture of the MESA (modular equipment storage assembly) that held the camera.
[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
Some people are so quick to throw out any conspiracy theory.
It makes me wonder why they are so quick to make these theories look like paranoid, wacko ideas
[/quote]
Because the info is presented with a kicking techno beat.
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757’s being crashed into its side.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!
Origins: The
notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that “the American government is lying.”
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan’s “theory” in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: “This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality.”
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan’s claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) 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?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not “only damage the outside of the Pentagon.” It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their “Miracle of the Pentagon” episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They?ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don’t reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 ? before it was known that the “accident” was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack ? newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn’t seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn’t dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the “outside” of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:
2) 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?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not “just the ground floor” but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
Next question:
3) 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?
You’ll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not “only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon’s first ring” ? it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building’s interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the “Defence Secretary” ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building’s interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane’s wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn’t asked “where the aircraft was”; he was asked “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn’t possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters’ hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it’s covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
Facts again. they always cloud the issue.
Just once if facts wouldn’t ruin everything ,then they could have their day in the sun.
(this only bolsters my alien theory as anyone can plainly see. They mind controlled all the witnesses obviously, Seriously just consider it. The govenment is in bed with the aliens. Halliburton is working directly for them already)
The larger question is why some people continue to believe every conspiracy theory that comes along when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and their arguments are destroyed point by point.
Aren’t you people sick of being wrong all the time?
When you are finally right no one will listen to you!
[quote]Gregus wrote:
It is rellevant today because it illustrates the pattern of thinking that goes on behind closed doors.
Would you think it was irrelewant if you found out that your parents had a murder planned for you in an “if” scenario if they needed money from your life policy?
Even if it did not happen you would question the mentality and psychological disposition of those people. That very pattern of thought is already that of someone you can never trust.
[/quote]
Then I would think that my parents were actually lizard space people, & I’d wear my tin foil hat everywhere I went to avoid their mind control rays.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Good point.
On a side note, I still want to know who was holding the camera when we SUPPOSEDLY landed on the moon.
(I can’t believe how many people fell for that one)
Kidding asside, I wouldn’t put it past our govt. to cover anything up.
Well i think it could be more of trying to save at least a little face in front of the world…Maybe.
Oh Shit, You know, it just hit me about who might have been holding that camera, shit this is gonna screw with me now, I mean Armstrong could not have layed the first steps on the moon if the cameraman had to get out to film him gettgin out, right, right? thanks bro, thanks.
There was a remote camera mounted on the outside of the lunar lander that was focused on the descent ladder to film Neil Armstrong as he stepped down onto the moon. It was mounted on a arm, that he deployed prior to opening the hatch and stepping out.
This link gives a picture of the MESA (modular equipment storage assembly) that held the camera.
[/quote]
Yea, that one was a joke and I didn’t think anyone would realy take that one seriously (though many people on the internet seem to believe it).
I don’t realy think the moon landing was a hoax.
I think a jealous russian started that rumor. 
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The larger question is why some people continue to believe every conspiracy theory that comes along when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and their arguments are destroyed point by point.
Aren’t you people sick of being wrong all the time?
When you are finally right no one will listen to you![/quote]
YOU PEOPLE! What’s THAT supposed to mean?! (just kidding)
It is fun to theorize and question things, but I do agree that many of the theories have had more than enough proof showing the theories to be false, and some are out right ridiculous.
The Aliens obviously planted us here. We are spawn from them, and they wanted to learn about their own history by observing us starting from scratch on a simmilar planet that they came from.
A large nuclear war destroyed all of their evidence of their own history, so we’re showing them what could have happened in their own past.
To all of the anti-conspiracy people out there I can sum it up in one single sentence…
WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO OR PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO OR IN THE VACINITY OF THE PENTAGON?
This is WASHINGTON DC. The city is completely FLODDED with cameras yet not one single camera has ever caught video of it. And dont give me that BS security gate camera 4 frame flash animation as video. A ) it shows shit and B) the date is wrong.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
To all of the anti-conspiracy people out there I can sum it up in one single sentence…
WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO OR PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO OR IN THE VACINITY OF THE PENTAGON?
This is WASHINGTON DC. The city is completely FLODDED with cameras yet not one single camera has ever caught video of it. And dont give me that BS security gate camera 4 frame flash animation as video. A ) it shows shit and B) the date is wrong.[/quote]
How many security cameras have you ever seen that look up?
I personally saw the aftermath of the Pentagon days after it happened. While I may not be a demolition expert, the damage sure as hell looked like something caused by a large jet and not a rigged truck.