Topic awaiting preservation: 9/11 Flash.. (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

QUOTATION: "The trouble with a rat race is that even when you win, you're still a rat.''

All that footage being quickly seized and never released, that's pretty creepy.

There was a thread a while ago, likely long gone by now, but it held a link in it to a site all about this. I wish I had it.
Good find, thanks Xpirex.

Edit: Ahh, but there is this.

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com

(Edited by njuice42 on 09-06-2004 04:16)

Seen it. It's untrue. Shut the hell up.

So where are the parts of the plane ? the body of the passangers ? the tons of fuel ?

This again?

Quotes from unverifiable "witnesses".

Footage from undetermined time frames.

Pure conjecture with no basis in physics.

What else...? Oh yeah - cheesy flash format.

Yay.

I think asking questions is a great thing. I think creating a conspiracy on the flimsy items listed above is just a waste of everyone's time.

Give me something with some basis in reality, and I'd be happy to give it some thought.

Really not trying to be a dick here, but I think it's beyond foolish to just dismiss all of this as simply being conspiracy theory. If anything's flimsy, it's the details... not the broad facts, but the details being looked at more and more carefully as time draws on.

Let's imagine that a plane really did hit the Pentagon that morning. Let's ignore the fact that there is no debris (and dispite what anyone says, I can't find anything in any photo I've ever seen.) Let's move aside the fact that the damage was nowhere near the extent that is observed in past plane crashes. And let's go ahead and accept the little item of every piece of photographic evidence of the crash being immediately seized and nothing coming back out as being part of the investigation process. Fine.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Believe what you will, but simple and automatic dismissal in the name of conspiracy is wrong.

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com

So, they say that eyewitnesses believe that the plane hit the ground and skidded into it--that's not necissarily the case. It could have been very close to the ground but not hitting it. It could have directly hit the building.

The spool thing's somewhat interesting, but from that distance with low-quality cameras (or at least pictures) it's hard to tell if they were very damaged, or not. I feel that the explosion happened more inside the building than out, so the spools could, in my mind, have the chance to survive like that.

I consider this to be blatant paranoia just like "uhr Jesus' face was in the 9/11 smoke" (for those who haven't seen the picture: it looks nothing like Jesus).

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

I thought it was Satan's face in the smoke, no?

Wrong.

It was Ralph Nader.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

Seen it. It's untrue. Shut the hell up.

---

oh gee, okay... so its untrue... and I just couldnt make up my mind whether to accept it or dissmiss it, but now its all clear as day - an insider says its untrue, so it must be a pile of horseshit. how stupid of us to even doubt the total lack of veracity in the whole ordeal.

Sent it to my dad. He basically said it's untrue by frowning as he knows a Pentagon worker that witnessed the plane coming in.

I think the conspiracy idea is neat. What if the plane really was a missile? That'd open up some great plots made for TV!

Saving bandwidth...

MH - obviously that person is simply a plant to further cover the conspiracy.

Njuice - like I said, give me something verfiable, and I'd be happy to give some thought and research.

There is very little on that site, or in that Flash nightmare, that inspires much actual thought.

People said "it sounded like a missle". Oh. Whoopty-fucking-doo. My neighbors kid sounds like a baboon.

People had conflicting accounts of what happened. Yeah? And that means.......?

People have opinions on the size/shape hole the plane *should* have made. Ok. I have lots of opinions. Sometimes they differ from reality.

People have found things that seem coincidental. Don't they always?

People think it should have left burn marks on the lawn. Well, I would be interested in further explanation of this, but to assume that a plane crashing into the side of a building would leave the same debris and markings as a plane crashing into the ground is purely unreasonable in the first place.

And those are the *more* credible aspects of the whole deal.

~shrug~

I'm not the type to say that the government wouldn't do such things. I'm far too cynical. But...I need something credible to go on....

This is another U.S. coverup.
But the real story has only just started to leak out.
What really hit the pentagon was a UFO...the same type of UFO that was found at Area 52 (two doors down from Area 51).

Obviously, the military want to keep this hush hush. By coincidence, the UFO crash happened on 9/11, the same day as the terrorist attacks, so it was easy to make up a story about another jet crashing into the pentagon.

if you look closely at the pentagon you will notice it's actually a model..the real pentagon was never hit. all photographs are fakes and all videos are fakes too as was the 1969 and subsequent moon landings. all the people in D.C, all the airline staff, families, press, etc. are also part of the conspiracy as was Jimmy Hoffa who is not dead and is actually living with Elvis and Jim Morrison.

i hope this clears up the situation once and for all.

quote:

---

tntcheats said:

The spool thing's somewhat interesting

---

How did the spools survive?????
How the hell did they survive?
And there's firemen too..how they hell did they survive??

oh...hold on....maybe the spools and firemen came after the blast?

as for the sound of missiles....i have trouble telling the difference between a cruise and a tomahawk..so i'll leave it up to the experts who hear missiles every day and can distinguish between them like a birder can tell the difference between different songbirds.

a first you think ppl are so gullible...then you realize that these conspiracy buffs and the assholes who subscribe to them are just sick anti-american fucks.

Haha Shooting_Star!

You feel for the oldest trick in the US Govt's bag! There is no Pentagon - but they sure would like you to believe there was.

quote:

---

Really not trying to be a dick here, but I think it's beyond foolish to just dismiss all of this as simply being conspiracy theory. If anything's flimsy, it's the details... not the broad facts, but the details being looked at more and more carefully as time draws on.

---

What details are we looking at though njuice? Certainly a few pixelated images of unknown origin wouldn't classify as facts, would they? Particularly when they're in a bad Flash movie that made the front page of ebaumsworld.com.

Like DL says, show me something creditable and then I'll take it serious.

heh. everything "credible" has been seized by the gorvernment. what's left is what pro-american schmucks dismiss as "bad flash".

damn, if it WERE a plane and their story were ligid, why wouldnt they release those videos? you didnt see feds running around and collecting wtc videos on 9.11.04...
Its very easy to hide all the real evidence, push some story into the media (and "pentagon friends"), and have all of you think that since all the evidence that's left isn't "credible enough," the whole idea is nothing more than a lunatic's raving. so stupid.



(Edited by asptamer on 09-08-2004 02:28)

DL made a very good point.

But on the images shown on TV during the 9/11, I've never seen any evidence of a plane crash on the pentagon. The grass was rather clean and intact, there was no big parts of engine, chairs, bodies, broken wings and tail of the plane, ... the sort of thing that a plane crash always leave.

Alas few months later, I've seen the crash of the Concorde near Paris and it left many parts of the plane and it completly damaged the ground.

I'm not a conspiracy cry-baby, but I wonder how could a plane crash be so "clean". On the other hand I don't see the use of a conspiracy if it's not a plane that striked the pentagon.

[hypothetical_mode] Imagine for one second that in fact the plane have been shot down by chase planes, and the pentagon have been hit by a missile or a bomb. Why would the US government hide that ? The situation was so critical that shooting down an hijacked plane was, at the moment, the best solution to lower the number of victims. And since some terrorist squads managed to bomb some war boats is it so unlikely that a missile or a bomb could hit the pentagon ? [/hypothetical_mode]

it was the French that started this one...that says it all.
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html

what they forgot to say:
given this was all a hoax, they had to kill off any people that could refute it.
in fact they killed off:
all the people at American Airlines who might talk
all the ATC's who were tracking this flight
all the families of the passengers of the flight
all the workers and personnel at the Pentagon
all the press and amateur videophiles

while about 3,000 people died at the world trade, at least 50, 000 people were killed indirectly due to the pentagon incident - which is incredible given it was a hoax- just a remote control plane, a toy model.

if Kerry gets in, another 40,000 Republicans will have to be killed to continue the cover-up before the Dems get in. Either way, they will eventually have to be silenced as will any posters in this thread who think it was a real plane.

if the Americans hadn't saved the French's ass in WWII the French would have been ground up in cheap hamburger meat to feed the German dogs. Talk about ungrateful bastards.

and you think Zigot-Bahn is screwed in the head. you guys take the cake man...he's a genius compared to you anti-american conspiracy mental midget pro-radical muslim terrorist shitheads dipshits

(Edited by Shooting_Star on 09-08-2004 03:04)

quote:

---

Shooting_Star said:
it was the French that started this one...that says it all.
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html

---

That guy is highly controversial and contested in France you know

And please save me the paragraph about how ungrateful, pro-muslim an anti-american ALL the French are.



(Edited by poi on 09-08-2004 03:07)

quote:

---

what's left is what pro-american schmucks dismiss as "bad flash"

---

Ahhhhhhhhhh.....that's right - I forgot you pigeon-holed me into that role. I'll have to remember my place better.



It's nice that you can pull out such labels for me (and others) when I'm on this side of the arguement, but conveniently forget about it when I take the "other" side.

Anyhooo....pulling out the insults and labels isn't bringing you any further towards proving your point, asp.

quote:

---

heh. everything "credible" has been seized by the gorvernment.

---

Naturally you have creditable evidence that all the creditable evidence has been seized by the government, right?

I'm as open-minded as the next person, but I don't see any factual basis behind this. That whole flash is based purely on witnesses describing what they thought they heard or saw or felt or whatever. I see no factual evidence that the government covered it up, I see no factual evidence that they didn't. Furthurmore, why would the government lie about a missile hitting? Seems to me they'd be the first people to address to the nation that Osama Bin Laden now has Missiles active and easily ready to strike, no? Must we go through this again....?

Okay, let's talk physics here. Hard facts, the real deal, apple falling on the head and everything. Now I'm no scientist, so my thoughts may be flawed, do feel more than welcome to correct me where I fall behind. Okay...

One (1) 757 Boeing, weighing in at around 80 tons, carrying 64 people on board, travelling at 565 MPH hits a building.

Now again, I'm no scientist, but I'd like to think that this would equal a big crash with tons of shit flying in every which way. Call me crazy, but a plane has a lot of stuff in it. I've been in a few 757's in my day, so I know that even with only 64 people flying, there'd still be multiple classes with kitchen areas full of utensils, drink carts, toiletries, magazines and food. There's also the fact that there's a lot of seats on a plane. And luggage. And, at that point, people. Let's not forget about the engines or the landing gear, too.

And yet, somehow, not only did the wings manage to completely dissapear and cause zero relative damage to where they would have hit, magically folding inward like a paper model, but they'd offer up no evidence (absolutely no evidence) that they'd have ever been there in the first place. Nor did the luggage. Or the kitchen areas. Or the cockpit. Or the rows upon rows of seats and people inside them. Or the engines, and so on and so on.

Couldn't have hit the ground first, then skidded into the building, I think even the most jaded of critics would have to agree, seeing as the very good shape of that thar green lawn. So... direct hit? Whether this building was "built to handle that kind of thing happening" or not, it would have still cause a great deal more damage and chaos than it did. Err, lemme take that back, because there was enough chaos there admitedly.

So, in the name of science, let's refute my own ideas.
Jet fuel burns crazy-hot. Hot enough to turn huge iron support beams into bubbling puddles of neon-red liquid. It must have hit, and exploded, and burned everything with such an intensity that it simply evaporated the whole thing, and everything in it. Strange, I remember seeing footage of people below the twin towers that morning being kept away from a big ol chunk of plane engine sitting in the middle of an intersection.

If, then, the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go? What happened to the people? The plane? The oh-so-important drink carts?!

If, then, it was a missile or bomb that hit, why wouldn't the Pentagon admit it? Why would the remote generator next to it be destroyed as well, with no markings of any kind (lawn-wise, surrounding area) of debris hitting it?

I don't know.

No one does. Well, no one willing to talk knows, anyways.

I can't offer up all the answers. All I can do is reinforce my opinion that, looking at all of the pictures and video stills and account eye witnesses and blah blah blah, that I believe we're being told a story that doesn't add up. To me, it's simple logic. Logic that exists without the proper amounts of solid evidence. Of course I will continue to look into it with the hope that one day, something will come along to help further my point of view. Until then, it remains 50% of a Panda puzzle that we're being told is an ostrich. *shrug*

For more evidence, you'll have to dig that up for yourselves. I've provided a link to a site that I feel raises the appropriate red flags and kind of kick-starts the whole thinking process. No number of smirking slimies can refute my opinion

There's an old phrase that goes, "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after me." I'd hope no one would take that literally, but would rather see it in its context of usage in this thread.

No, I'm no anti-American. No, I'm no unpatriotic. And no, I won't subscribe to a story that has no credible evidence supporting it, which would be this crash. For everyone that says that there isn't any evidence that it was a missile or a jet plane or whatever, there isn't a whole shit load of evidence to prove it was. At least, from my perspective. Which must be skewed, because I'm now spewing forth large amount of anti-American crap. Damn, there's another one.

Shooting_Star: I appreciate your input and opinion, but I think you're being a dick simply to be a dick. *shrugs*

DL: Just as I haven't found sites proclaiming through science that it didn't happen, I also haven't found anything scientifically backing up the official story, either. If you have, please, point them out to me.

Jestah: I'd imagine that the credible fact that they've been seized and never released would say enough. As asptamer said earlier, no one seized any of the other 9/11 footage. Seems kinda weird to me, is all.

Finally, Insider: Yes, I feel we should go through this again. Feel free not to comment on it if you are really that tired of the topic being brought up, but just because it was raised earler doesn't mean it can't make the rounds again. I have views, you have views, let's all share a bowl of granola, eh?

So now that I've stepped on everyone's toes and labelled myself a terrorist, let's discuss, shall we? It's fun! It's interesting, it's crazy stuff to sit and imagine all of the crap that we do not know about the situation and what happened. Because I have a feeling that we are being lied to about something, big or small, it's still the ol' sheep wool over the eyes thing. Not that we even have a right as citizens to know, but, hey, that's another subject for another time.

*puts away soapbox*

Thank you for taking the time to read this incredibly long assed post.

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com

quote:

---

I also haven't found anything scientifically backing up the official story, either. If you have, please, point them out to me.

---

There was a site, when this topic originally came up way back when, that did just that. I have been trying to find it again, with no luck.

And let me clarify some things - yes, there are questions. No, I can't answer all of these questions, and some of them make me wonder.

I also have no doubt that the government is quite capable of such a thing as staging this event, both logistically and ethically.

I just don't see anything here to make me beleive that's what happened...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I can't believe none of you checked out what our buddies at snopes had to say on this and similar issues... (but be careful! They're probably on a government payroll to provide more mis-information!)

I think snopes has a good argument in the case for the official story.

Still doesn't add up, though, in my opinion. And the picture showing a piece of debris on the far lawn? That's the first time I've seen that picture in over 3 years from looking at theory and news sites alike. Makes me raise an eyebrow to it, not to be too critical.

As for our government being up to taking it upon themselves to gain support for a war? It's not un-heard of, in the mid to late 60's, a plan was submitted to cause civilian casualties on the home front to begin public support for a war against Cuba. It was passed all the way up the ladder until JFK put a stop to it. There was also a little murmur of something relating to the FBI and the first WTC bombings, but those details are much more fuzzy. I'm trying to find that source, it's been a while since I read that, but I remember it fondly and will link to that source as soon as I can find it.

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com

Thanks, bodhi. That's not as good as the original site I had in mind, but does offer many of the same points, many of which are - to me - mostly common sense.

As I said above - to expect a plane crashing into the side of abuilding to elave the same kind of debris and marks as a plane crashing into the ground is wholly unreasonable.

As for the debris - I have seen many examples of debris photos, all of which show similarly small pieces, which is easily understandable considering all the "facts" of the issue. Don't recall whether I've seen this particular one or not, but it's not something that just suddenly materialized...

One of the more important points, for me, is the issue of comparing the impact of the planes on the WTC and the impact on the Pentagon. Where are the planes that hit the WTC? Where are the burn marks on the ground? Where is the fuselage?

The answers to those are obvious, and make the questions seem silly. Why then do the same questions about the pentagon make it suddenly a conspiracy in which there was no plane at all???

You can hardly compare the hits on the WTC with the Pentagon hit.. Those planes obliterated everything in their path.. Look at the damage those two planes did on those towers and compare with the Pentagon damage. I find that comparison completely rediculous!

QUOTATION: "The trouble with a rat race is that even when you win, you're still a rat.''

Um, most of the damage done to the WTC was done inadvertadly due to fire. They were able to obliterate 5 floors and keep the rest above them burning until they finally collapsed. With the Pentagon, it was only done to like three or four stories of the pentagon. And there was no 'up' for the fire to go, so it gave the firefighters more to work with to put it out.

Physics.

Xpi - once again: with the WTC, you're talking about 2 planes. You're talking about a massively tall, and therefore inherently weak (relatively speaking) structture.

And when the plane first hit, it did *not* obliterate everything around it. It looked at first like very little had happened. Then between fire, the second plane, and gravity, the real damage sunk in.

With the pentagon, you have one plane, at a slower speed, hitting an extremely strong building specially designed to hold up against attack.

Do you really think that the two buildings would take damage the same way???

And again - the planes were obliterated in the hits on the WTC - do you think it would be sitting there intact when it hit the pentagon? *That* is what the comparison is about - the damage to the planes.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
aside from the moon landings, and the whole U.S. space program, being a hoax, both space shuttle "disasters" were also faked...in both cases if you see the videos you will only see smoke...no visible debris from the shuttles themselves..this proves that this was faked. in both cases the smoke was due to fireworks made to look like a shuttle disaster.

in fact, most of the news we see each day is a hoax...the olympic games were a huge hoax...they never actually happened..in fact has anyone ever been to Greece? it doesn't even exist, just a myth. And as if NBA players could lose to high school students from Argentina..hoax.

the asylum? hoax...prove that it exists...go for it....all a hoax

(Edited by Shooting_Star on 09-09-2004 01:19)

I'd say that the whole thing would have been easy to fake in a country that fell for a faked moon landing or two - and just coz' you fake an incident, doesn't mean you need to fake the deaths. The whole point was to enrage the people enough to allow the start of this whole new war. They needed to start this war to stop Saddam Hussein releasing a potential blockbuster rock hit that he was planning to pervert the minds of American children with - as experts predicted that he'd be governor of Texas by the year 2023!

Oh yeah, and it was neither a UFO or a toy/robot plane. It was actually a large group of soldiers (pumped-up on amphetamines so they would run really fast) with a giant cigar-tube (with styrofoam wings) held aloft, making 'whoosh' noises. They were, of course, then sent to Iraq to die horribly in a deliberately botched attack on a small goat farm outside Hallelujah in the Jabbahutt region. That tied up some loose ends nicely while the French governement completed the final phase in their clever plot to replace Bush with a surgically altered French waitress.

So it was all the French after all. Damn, they've been intent on world domination since before the great Franco-plot to invade Poland dressed as Germans. The Nazi party was their greatest fake of all, and Hitler was actually a half-cast transexual pole-dancer from Africa who was later found to be living as a young boy in a Florida resort with Himmler posing as his grandfather.

___


What's worrying is that I actually watched that flash animation and realised that this was something I had already thought about many times - along with things like the supposedly impossible (due to deliberate 'safe' control limitations) high-G approach of the planes in New York; the fact that the piloting competency of the terrorists has been highlighted several times - despite the sheer level of difficulty involved in both New York impacts; the interesting lack of air-defences around the Pentagon - especially when even your average sheep-farmer seems to be capable of fitting radar-guided SAMs plugged into sophisticated threat analysis/response logic systems on the roof of his shack; and so, and so on...

It's amazing how momentarily compelling even the most outrageous claims can be - but it is also amazing what people will believe, whether it be a shaky and badly edited French conspiracy animation or the empassioned ramblings of a head of government.

Just because you're crazy, it doesn't mean there aren't little green men plotting to eat your brain...!

*da-da-da-da--da-da-da-da--da-da-da-da--daaaaaa*

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

(Edited by White Hawk on 09-09-2004 02:03)

(Edited by White Hawk on 09-09-2004 02:10)

Were any of these what you were looking for (re: scientific evidence)?


More evidence re: the Pentagon crash:
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm - analysis of the trajectory and impact at the Pentagon.


More on 9/11 conspiracy from Serendipity:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/home_run.htm - remote control, and why those black box tapes were blank!


Armed planes and demolition charges?!?
http://www.911uncovered.com/tower1.html


More on the exploding towers...
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1111


Errrrrr.....
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml


Why a war for oil?
http://copvcia.com/free/ww3/082304_million_depletion.shtml

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

The WTC Towers were, by design, much easier to damage, as the structural face of it isn't too resistant to planes, and will likely give with no effort. Imagine, if you will, sneezing through a kleenex.

The pentagon is harder and "made to withstand these types of terrorist attacks", lower to the ground and reinforced.

If the planes that hit the towers shattered and threw engine parts and huge amounts of debris around, it makes no logical sense that the plane that hit the pentagon would just fold up nicely and politely excuse itself from the scene of the crime via burning jet fuel. It's harder, less likely to bend and give in that second's-notice...

Good links, White.

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com

I may certainly be mistaken, but I have no recollection of there being any significant plane debris found at the WTC....?

It also stands to reason that a harder hit would be more likely to obliterate the remains as opposed to sending them flying.

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-09-2004 20:46)

WTC Debris. Or the Google search results to have found that one.

No short supply of debris when a plane crashes, I would think. I'd no sooner call you false than stick my foot in my mouth, but to me, it makes sense that something would shatter up and away faster impacting onto a harder surface with less 'give', as opposed to something that would sink in and take it.

For instance, and maybe it's a bit of a stretch, jumping off a bridge and either landing on water or pavement. Given the right velocities, you're breaking apart either way, right?

Cell # 551
icq 957255
msn njuice42(at)hotmail.com