Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Omniscaper on August 20, 2005, 04:28:38 am
-
I am not one for speculation and conspiracy theorizing, but this flash movie brings up some interesting points.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/
I dont know if this is old news but I'd like to know everyone's take on this?
-
Does anyone have links to the original photos? Whenever this kind of thing shows up I'm always mindful that just as the US Gov could make us believe a jet hit the Pentagon... so could someone else make us believe that it didn't.
So if the original pictures are around, that's where I'd start looking.
-
Hmmm, and i thought it had been taken down due to complaints...
-
I found these other sites with notes of the contrary, yet using some of the same photos.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
UGH I hate conspiracy theorists. What ever hit the Pentagon (a military target), nothing changes the fact that the WTC went down from terroist hijacked planes. There are enough eye witness accounts, footage, and cell phone recordings to confirm that fact. But, I am willing to entertain the possibility that the Pennsylvania plane was shot down by a missile. A military move, I feel was necesarry if it indeed happened.
URGH, why am I dwelling on this? %$^@#$^%#&$#&^%
-
Don't believe it for a moment. For a start you can't trust a single thing eyewitnesses say. Especially not when you take their comments out of context. You have to take all the comments made together and view what the majority of people say. What the video has done is to only present evidence supporting their claim even though there are many people who actually saw the plane fly into the building.
Secondly what the f**k happened to American Airlines flight 77 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Are they claiming that it didn't exist? Did they land it at Area 51 so the aliens, illuminati and jews could get off? How come we haven't heard from a single AA member of staff saying that the plane didn't exist.
This is just like the moon hoaxers. The stuff seems plausible if you don't know the facts behind it but as soon as you pull on a thread the entire thing unravels.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
I found this site very funny. The guy actually seems to believe that the other consipiracy nutjobs like himself who on this occassion don't agree with him are actually simply government agents embarked on some weird kind of mission to discredit legitimate conspiracy theorists like himself.
The fact that these people can simply be morons like himself never enters his mind :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Are they claiming that it didn't exist? Did they land it at Area 51 so the aliens, illuminati and jews could get off?
Hey, now that's just derogatory. I get your point, but please think of the readers that might be offended by this! Seriously, spare a thought for the Alien and Illuminati readers at HLP :p...
Originally posted by karajorma
This is just like the moon hoaxers. The stuff seems plausible if you don't know the facts behind it but as soon as you pull on a thread the entire thing unravels.
Would you stop bashing the moon hoaxers already! I'm beginning to take it personally!! :nervous:
-
If you still believe the moon landing was a hoax you deserve all the bashing you get. :p
-
I am not even sure what the truth is anymore. I am also so tired of the entire event being repeatedly brought up. Honestly, it is 4 years since it happened.
On a side note...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17intel.html?ei=5065&en=2aeff500108cbed3&ex=1124942400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1124533405-muTT5xXpc1NPz4CYBmrr+Q
Seems like all of this will never go away. I honestly don't care whos fault it is anymore. :sigh:
-
While it's something that needs investigating the FBI were aware of the terrorists from other sources and largely ignored them anyway. This probably would have resulted in more of the same.
-
Well from what I understand, they were told not to bring them in for questioning because they were in the US legally.
I am certain this is a biased source but:
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/abledanger.asp
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9755.htm
and I initially heard about all this from this guy http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
-
Which does of course mean that any information provided by the military wouldn't have had any effect on the terrorist's legal status and that they probably still wouldn't have been brought in.
What needs to be investigated is why the information wasn't presented and how the FBI should react to information like this.
-
Well, everything I have heard points to basically a political decision by people in the previous administration. From what I understand, they didn't want to be embarrised or something like that. And actually Atta didn't even have a green card at that time. There were also explicit blocks on sharing information.
-
I've seen this before, read other websites with cases made on them, and watched 9/11 In Plane Site.
I find a great deal of what is argued to be full of holes, but what is undeniable is that there are many questions to be answered about the official account of what happened that morning. WTC7 was brought down by emergency charges designed to take down a building in the event it endangers other city areas - so why did the official statements allude to fire damage? Why is no one in the media asking if the twin towers suffered the same fate?
Why is it so rediculous or "insensitive" to ask the questions any rational thinking person would want to ask when presented with these issues?
Go read up on the origins of the neo-con ideology, and of the islamic extremist, and you may understand why I am willing to hear these arguments made.
-
It is good to ask questions. Vyper does have a point. The towers appear to implode rather than fall to pieces.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
It is good to ask questions.
I'll never dispute that. The best way to learn it to ask "Why did that happen?" The problem with the first link is that it goes beyond "Why did this happen?" and onto "This must be why this happened!". That's a very shaky statement to make considering how easily most of its claims can be proved false.
Originally posted by EtherShock
Vyper does have a point. The towers appear to implode rather than fall to pieces.
If you watch them fall you'll notice that they "implode" starting on the floors which were most damaged by the crash. Do you really think that if they wanted to blow up the towers they would get someone to go up to the top of the still burning tower in order to plant explosives?
Cause who would be stupid enough to risk that?
The implosion you see was not caused by explosives. The towers collapsed from the sheer weight of the floors above crashing down on them. It's like a collapsing house of cards. The weight of the upper decks destablises the lower ones and the whole thing basically flattens itself.
-
The Twin Towers were built in a sort of tube arrangement. When the plane impact destroyed the exterior load bearing supports, the 'responsibility' for bearing weight fell onto the floors, which were weakened by the intense fire. As such the supports buckled and the towers collapsed.
The reason for the imposion effect is pretty simple; weight. In order to shift the centre of gravity (from the base) would need to have shifted about 100ft to make the towers 'topple'; with a 500m tonne building, that would take more than even a fuelled jetliner. With the weakening & collapsing floors (again) from the fire, the inner supports were buckling inwards rather than two one side.
Just imagine the effect of dropping one multi-story skyscraper directly onto the top of another. The downwards momentum would keep it going straight down - that's exactly what happened to the towers.
-
The arguments in the video seem pretty good at first glance, but the thing is, I don't believe that if the US Government wanted to make people believe it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, when it wasn't, they'd do that bad a job that every conspiracy nut can start a website and convince people.
-
The thing that made me discredit this entire site in about 30 seconds was when it said "...before the mind control machine went into effect..."
That's just retarded.
However, it does make some interesting arguments, and questions that should be answered. Can anyone point me to a link about the whole missing aircraft parts thing?
About the WTC towers: I watched a History Channel special on the Twin Towers (I'm not saying that makes me an expert, just listen), and they said that in the event of a catostrophic structural failure, then the buliding was designed to hold up for at least two hours before collapse. Guess how long it held up for?
Then you make the argument that there were charges at the bottom of the buildings. Why would that be there? Do they plant explosive charges at the bottom of all buildings nowadays? I don't recall hearing that the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc has them.
-
'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity/bureaucracy'.
A maxim that conspiracy theorists have never heard of.
They see one piece of evidence that things are not as the government tell them, and they begin to construct a huge paranoid hypothesis from it.
Apparent coverups could just as easily be the result of some bureaucrat guarding his territory jealously against competition. Or a file getting lost somewhere in a cabinet.
Frankly, I can't see why the US government would stage an attack on the Pentagon. Nor can I see what they would stand to gain by covering up the use of a cruise missile by terrorists in the attack.
Compared to the attack on the Twin Towers, no one gives a damn about the Pentagon.
-
You're right about that. A simple survey could provide evidence few care or think about the Pentagon when they hear 9/11. Unless you surveyed the DC area maybe.
Is there any video of the attack on the Pentagon or prior to, or do we just have pictures to go by?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The thing that made me discredit this entire site in about 30 seconds was when it said "...before the mind control machine went into effect..."
That's just retarded.
However, it does make some interesting arguments, and questions that should be answered. Can anyone point me to a link about the whole missing aircraft parts thing?
About the WTC towers: I watched a History Channel special on the Twin Towers (I'm not saying that makes me an expert, just listen), and they said that in the event of a catostrophic structural failure, then the buliding was designed to hold up for at least two hours before collapse. Guess how long it held up for?
Then you make the argument that there were charges at the bottom of the buildings. Why would that be there? Do they plant explosive charges at the bottom of all buildings nowadays? I don't recall hearing that the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc has them.
Well, the 'theory' goes that the US government 'hijacked' their own planes, either spiriting away the pilots and occupants or just killing them. Alternative theory is that they allowed the planes to be hijacked (even though such a plan would surely require the previous politically diametric administation to co-operate).
They then flew these planes into the Twin Towers, waiting for a few hours or so before demolishing the 2 towers (presumably using explosives placed at the exact location of the impacts using the power of precoginition).
They also fired a cruise missile into the Pentagon for..er..the hell of it, too. And pretended it was a plane (and presumably paid/bribed/brainwashed all the witnesses - oh, and placed fake wreckage from a plane around the place. And bribed/etc the photographers that took pictures of said wreckage).
The 4th plane, er, I'm not sure what that was for.
The purpose of all this was to create a 'new Pearl Harbour' to build support for American imperialism, as defined in the document thing from the PNAC which I can't place the name of yet.
Admittedly, the latter bit almost makes it seem plausible. Almost.
:)
-
Whether or not the US Govt. had a hand in 9/11 - which even I can admit is pretty stupid - you have to admit that the current US Administration is hiding WAY too much for its own good, 'Classifying' (as in, making documents Classified) more material than any previous administration. Ever. My point is, the current Administration just has too many damn secrets and everyone knows it...
-
Or maybe the other administrations were better at covering up their secrets? :p
-
My view, and it's not for everyone, is that looking for proof of a conspiracy is stupid. If you believe that the conpirators are halfway competent individuals, as they should be, then there will be no proof. If they were doing mind control **** back in the 60s, am I to believe that "they" would be incapable of pulling off a simple hijacking in this day and age?
Of course, there are problems with this mindset. First of all, you very quickly end up questioning everything, including the existance of reality itself, if you pursue the line of thought. Also, people have been proven to be much less competent than they are made out to be in the imaginations of writers and directors, though this could itself be a conspiracy, where certain events have been intentionally revealed to give people a false impression of incompetence on the part of the government. I'd do that if I were in "their" position.
I usually just split the difference and give everyone a little credit. So my positions is that while the US probably didn't orchestrate 9/11, they may have known about it and let it happen. I have no proof either way, but going down the middle is a nice safe bet.
-
What Is The Matrix?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Also, people have been proven to be much less competent than they are made out to be in the imaginations of writers and directors,
Perhaps we Yanks should get Tom Clancy to come up with a plan that will protect the US from terrorism and its own elected politicians. :)
Or perhaps resurrect Tolkien so he can re-engineer us a new culture.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
What Is The Matrix?
'Nuff said.
:yes:
-
The majority of the American people are brainwashed.
What does this matter?
:sigh: Meh.
-
The closest thing we have to mind control is the media, and not everyone falls for it, although most do, and it can't be blamed for everything. It's not the kind of mind control referred to in the flash, which makes it hard to take seriously at all. It's not like it can't be stopped, all people have to do to start is turn off the ****ing TV.
Now if the government did let this happen, the question is why would they let such an atrocity take place? And you know what, we won't know, just like our parents will never know what really happened with JFK. We can speculate all we want, but by the time information is declassified, we'll all be dead and no one will care.
-
Originally posted by Grug
The majority of the American people are brainwashed.
What does this matter?
:sigh: Meh.
Now was that really necessary? I swear, the subtle and BLATENT anti-american sentiments in these generalizing statements astound me.
-
Actually it's pretty hard to understand why so many people voted for G.W. Bush from a european point of view.
Maybe that's one example for those so-called "anti american" postings.
I don't want to post too much about this politic things, cause I only hear the most 'noticable' news from the USA, but I can understand where this anti-amercian feelings come from.
The USA doesn't accept the International Curt of Justic, they have attacked the Irak*, even though the UN resolutions didn't really allow this action. It looks like teh USA doesn't care for the rest of the world. (This is the most severe problem!)
All this gives the USA an agressive and unpredictable face.
Of couse it's wrong to think all people there are agressive and selfish, but in the end the whole nation is responible for the action of their administration, because they selected the administration.
I can only speak for myself when I say: I will not blame the people of a whole nation for anything. Especially not in an indirect democracy.
But look at this board. People from all over the world communitcate with each other. Some of them even work together in teams on their projects.
Color of the skin, gender, nationality, or politcal interests are not important.
When I see the problems in the world, sometimes I think "Why can they be like us?".
I love the contact to people from other nations.
Edit: * I don't want to say the Irak war was wrong (or right), but acting without the authorisation of the UN council is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Perhaps we Yanks should get Tom Clancy to come up with a plan that will protect the US from terrorism and its own elected politicians. :)
Or perhaps resurrect Tolkien so he can re-engineer us a new culture.
Tom Clancy's plan would involve John Clark blowing terrists' heads off like ripe melons and mounting people at once.
Tolkien would write long poets how everything was better in the past and how we live the age of leaving and vanishing and change and everything's ruined and those fukken peons are mixing the aristocrat royal blood of higher beings once again.
-
I've seen this before. I put it in the same pile as the "moon landings never happened" folder.
Interesting question to ask but taken much too far.
Although a student of media and the powerful role that the media can play on the public, most media theories either allow room for or are contradicted by a relatively equal argument on how the public drives media. Ultimately, there are no absolute truths and no perfect lies. The simpliest answer is usually the one closest to the truth.
In a society like ours, there is the notion of free speech. Its not perfectly free (and many question if it every really should be) but you can't really hide the big secrets. If you manage to for a little while it will just be worse when it finally gets out.
So I'm fairly certain that people have landed on the moon, that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 airliner on September 11, and that Frodo does not exist except in books and DVD's.
The "evidence" to the contrary tries to explain away some fundamental issues as part of the overall conspiracy. There is no foundation...its just fluff. But then again, they can say whatever they want.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
So I'm fairly certain... that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 airliner on September 11...
You've gotta admit, tho, that the lack of debris from the 757 is slightly beyond curious... ;)
-
I have to admit I'm a fan of conspiracy theories. Whatever they are about.
There just has to be more behind this. There are a lot of things that do not make sense if you take a closer look at them.
Maybe will get to know more about this in a couple of years. Like Pearl Harbour. There was indeed more behind it.
Maybe not a conspiracy, but at least the officals didn't tell us everything.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You've gotta admit, tho, that the lack of debris from the 757 is slightly beyond curious... ;)
Actually, on that other page, it linked to that test of the airforce jet crashing into a brick wall or something - check out what happened to the jet :) Completely obliterated.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You've gotta admit, tho, that the lack of debris from the 757 is slightly beyond curious... ;)
I've seen photos of other plane crashes with aircraft the same or larger size than the 757 and there was nothing left that could be identified as an airliner.
From what I understand from the reports, the Terrorists flew full throttle into the side and the plane disintigrated.
Keep in mind that the 767's that hit the Trade Towers were much larger aircraft. They are longer, wider, have a larger wing span and are much heavier. The 757 is a smaller more commuter like aircraft.
Now based on what was said. There is video that has not been released. Maybe an American can fill us in a bit more on the freedom of information act...that stuff has to be released at some point.
EDIT: If it wasn't a 757 then what was it? Someone apparently said he smelt cordite used in explosives. Car bomb? Cars don't sound like jets. Ok...cruise missile? The flash in the video they do show is larger than a Tomahawk. Another aircraft? Where did the AA flight goto then? And all the people onboard? How come Osama's story about the 4 planes matches our story?
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Ok...cruise missile? The flash in the video they do show is larger than a Tomahawk.
The flash? You mean the glimpse of the object pre-impact, or the explosion?
-
Some of the witnesses said it 'sounded like a missile'. So... who were these witnesses, and how do they know the difference between the sound made by an aircraft at cruising speed and a missile?
I mean, how much of the general public has actually HEARD a missile?
-
And how much of the public actually knows the difference in smell between a cruise missile, bomb or crashed aircraft?
-
An airplane doesn't smell of cordite, that's for sure.
And in any case, a cruise missle is several times smaller than a 747, and the difference in the amount of debris left would be quite noticeable. One is a Mini Cooper, the other is an 18-wheeler truck. If you saw a crash on the highway, you could tell which one it was.
-
But could you tell the difference after they went through a car crusher? :D
Besides as the other site Omni linked to points out there is a significant quantity of metal in front of the pentagon. Where did it come from if not from a commercial aeroplane?
-
The conspiracy theorists would have you believe that those pictures were "faked".
-
The conspiracy theorists can kiss my arse. :D
If you're going to say pictures are faked then it's perfectly possible that they've photoshopped their own evidence.
-
Very true.
Damn, what was that site that took the piss out of the Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists by photoshopping multicoloured rats all over the pictures?
-
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
This seems similar but may be a ripoff.
http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellanea/misc/moonlanding.html
Proper one, I think
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,26705.0.html
and The Thread.
EDIT; they're not rats, they're Clangers. Do not diss thy Clangers, for they are kings among stuffed toys.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The flash? You mean the glimpse of the object pre-impact, or the explosion?
The glimpse of the object pre-impact. Looks much too large to be a tomahawk. Of course, I'm just as qualified to make that assumption as the guys making the argument...
I did more searches. There's a plentiful field full of conspiracy theories about the WTC and the Pentagon ranging from the use of depleted uranium warheads, signs in the grass next to the Pentagon a few days before, and so on. Seems nobody can quite agree... and there's just as much evidence for as there is against. I use the term evidence...everything has been edited...and everything can be accused of being edited.
-
An Explanation:
No Wreckage: The guy said himself the plane was travelling at speeds in exces of 500 mph so what do you think would happen to anything going that fast made out of lightweight aircraft materials striking concrete and steel, I think the word disentigration ( I think I mispelled that) sounds right.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
This seems similar but may be a ripoff.
http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellanea/misc/moonlanding.html
Proper one, I think
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,26705.0.html
and The Thread.
EDIT; they're not rats, they're Clangers. Do not diss thy Clangers, for they are kings among stuffed toys.
In the pics I saw, the 'aliens' were definitely rats. Someone had taken a picture of a rat, fiddled with the HLS values, and pasted it onto REAL moonlanding photos.
I'm sure the pictures were on TotL.net, but I can't find 'em...