ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 56 of 357
« First < 6465253545556 5758596066106156 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 03:10 PM 02-15-2006
[QUOTE=Vlad Logicslav]
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:

Jim, please allow me to ask you the following questions:

1. Is there a popularly accepted and government sanctioned explanations of these events of 9/11? Hint: Yes. People are comfortable being sheep and don't want to doubt, this means nothing.

2. Is that explanation disputed by this film, either directly or indirectly? Hint: Yes. No, it is not all it does is bring up questions that are unanswered that is not disputing it is simply questioning.

3. Has it been suggested by the government (or, ironically, even the terrorist groups involved--haven't they, in fact, claimed credit?) that their version of these events is ambiguous, deceptive, or in any way subject to interpretation, as it relates to the motives of the attacks, or the actual events of 9/11? Hint: No.
Other sources have indeed disputed the governments video claiming credit by the terrorists, the authenticity of that tape is very much in doubt. However that is not in the video at all.

4. If the government has knowingly promulgated an official and definitive explanation of 9/11, and has not offered any suggestion of ambiguity to that explanation, would continuing to stand by the "official" explanation be considered a "cover-up" by the government. Hint: Yes. No it would simply mean the government is satisfied they have mollified the people and want to move on. It is actually possible they have no bad intentions. Only in the case of the video not being released at the pentagon is their signs of a cover-up. Since this is about the WTC there is only a loose connection.

In light of the above, the director of this video has clearly premised his work on the ridiculous notion that the government "explanation" of the events of 9/11 have been an elaborate, deliberate, and well-orchestrated lie. No you are projecting that on the video it does not say it.

As a lie, the government in feeding us this explanation would, by definition, be engaged in an elaborate cover-up of epic proportions. Again this is your projection not the video's assertion.

Any other interpretation of what this video presents (much of which is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified), would be illogical. Only your opinion.
I agreed with you until you said that the video doesn't talk about the fake Bin Laden tape, which is inaccurate. The tape does raise that question, by posing the same pictures TJ has issued more than once in this forum, particularly this thread.

Other than that, :-)
[Reply]
jiveturkey 03:16 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
I've tried that and didn't come up with anything substantial, but if you look at some of the pictures of crash sites from the planes that did crash on takeoff you will still see that there aren't very many large parts left. In a crash like at the Pentagon the burning fuel would also have some drastic impact on the components that might be left from a plane. Remember that the material used in aircraft is typically lightweight for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what components make up the jet engines.
I really haven't come up with anything either.

I'll leave that one where it is since there isn't a lot of info one way or the other.

The next question would be the tied to how far the aircraft borrowed into the pentagon. The "lightweight" materials are suspect with regards to the deep penetration of the aircraft's nose.

I would like to mention once again that this is only for arguments sake. :-)
[Reply]
Taco John 04:37 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
I may, or may not. It would depend, of course....on precise circumstances and conditions.


If you don't know, just don't answer, dude. The question was posed for someone like an engineer who might know. We're pretty aware of the circumstances and conditions. What we don't know is why there aren't holes in the building where the jet engines barrelled through it.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 06:25 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
If you don't know, just don't answer, dude. The question was posed for someone like an engineer who might know. We're pretty aware of the circumstances and conditions. What we don't know is why there aren't holes in the building where the jet engines barrelled through it.
Well, it was the Pentagon. Maybe Violet Incredible is kept there, and with her force-field superpowers she disintegrated it. I think that's probably it.

Regardless, it's at least as likely as what the conspiracy theorists are suggesting.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 06:26 PM 02-15-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
I've tried that and didn't come up with anything substantial, but if you look at some of the pictures of crash sites from the planes that did crash on takeoff you will still see that there aren't very many large parts left. In a crash like at the Pentagon the burning fuel would also have some drastic impact on the components that might be left from a plane. Remember that the material used in aircraft is typically lightweight for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what components make up the jet engines.
Maybe its me, but I have never seen a plane that crashed, regardless of where or how, completely vanish or destory itself.

First, if that were the case, then why wasn't Flight 93 completely gone?
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 07:21 AM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by irishjayhawk:
Maybe its me, but I have never seen a plane that crashed, regardless of where or how, completely vanish or destory itself.

First, if that were the case, then why wasn't Flight 93 completely gone?
Who said completely? You are doing the typical and reading into anything said to validate you stance.

Nobody said that they were completely destroyed but that there were no sizeable chunks left, like whole wings. You might consider the fireball that would be connected with any crash of that magnitude.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 07:24 AM 02-16-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John
If you don't know, just don't answer, dude. The question was posed for someone like an engineer who might know. We're pretty aware of the circumstances and conditions. What we don't know is why there aren't holes in the building where the jet engines barrelled through it.


Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
Well, it was the Pentagon. Maybe Violet Incredible is kept there, and with her force-field superpowers she disintegrated it. I think that's probably it.

Regardless, it's at least as likely as what the conspiracy theorists are suggesting.
Taco Jane, in your best guess just where would the jet engines have barreled through the building? Have you considered that they might have followed the major mass of the plane as it entered thet building? Your assumption that the plane would have hit the building and stayed intact is just a little off base.

But far be it for anyone with a shred of common sense to consider the obvious. Why don't you go ahead and tell us of your experience in investigating aircraft crashing into buildings. I'm sure you have extensive first hand experience that we could all use to follow your theory of conspiracy.
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 11:07 AM 02-16-2006
At the very least the engines would've knocked out the windows. Jeezus christ how idiotic do people have to be to see pictures of those god damn windows and not realize that a plane with wings didn't hit the damn thing.

You can whip it out and piss on some peoples hair and as long as the news tells them it's raining they'll believe you.

Somebody put up another pic of the initial hole in the pentagon.
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 11:09 AM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
At the very least the engines would've knocked out the windows. Jeezus christ how idiotic do people have to be to see pictures of those god damn windows and not realize that a plane with wings didn't hit the damn thing.

You can whip it out and piss on some peoples hair and as long as the news tells them it's raining they'll believe you.

Somebody put up another pic of the initial hole in the pentagon.
Of course you have some kind of statistical data to back up your claim?

Or are you a forensic plane crash expert?

Are you an aircraft design engineer?

What are your qualifications?
[Reply]
Taco John 11:30 AM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Of course you have some kind of statistical data to back up your claim?

Or are you a forensic plane crash expert?

Are you an aircraft design engineer?

What are your qualifications?


Tom, you're not a forensic plane crash expert. You're a pencil pusher.

Nobody cares about your opinion here. You're only objective is to obstruct the discussion. Go push your pencils and pat yourself on the back at your importance to this nation and leave the rest of us alone.
[Reply]
B_Ambuehl 12:32 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by :
Of course you have some kind of statistical data to back up your claim?
yes, I have 4 very important "statistics" that are evidently in very short supply. They are:

A. A picture
B. 2 Eyes
C. Common
D. Sense
[Reply]
Taco John 12:47 PM 02-16-2006
Here are the pictures requested...


rel="Lightbox"?attachmentid=53884" border="0" alt="" class="tcattdimgresizer" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" />


rel="Lightbox"?attachmentid=53885" border="0" alt="" class="tcattdimgresizer" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" />


rel="Lightbox"?attachmentid=53886" border="0" alt="" class="tcattdimgresizer" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" />
Attached: pent1.gif (79.0 KB) pent2.gif (88.3 KB) pent3.gif (140.0 KB) 
[Reply]
Taco John 12:51 PM 02-16-2006
Now wait a minute... Isn't Logical a plane engineer? I thought I remember someone saying he worked for Boeing or something (am I wrong?)

Hey Jim... Your analysis of the plane engines and their relative lack of damage to the building please?
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 01:06 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
yes, I have 4 very important "statistics" that are evidently in very short supply. They are:

A. A picture
B. 2 Eyes
C. Common
D. Sense
Not considered proof by any means.

You are a fraud.
[Reply]
Radar Chief 01:14 PM 02-16-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Now wait a minute... Isn't Logical a plane engineer? I thought I remember someone saying he worked for Boeing or something (am I wrong?)

Hey Jim... Your analysis of the plane engines and their relative lack of damage to the building please?
Was it Jim or Gaz? :-)
[Reply]
Page 56 of 357
« First < 6465253545556 5758596066106156 > Last »
Up