9-11 Conspiracy Video - there was a coverup!

\The more I look at these conspiracy theories the more I wonder why there are no OK bombing conspiracy videos. Then I stumble onto this: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htmhttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/okc_coverup.htm

There is obviously a conspiracy for everything. Am I to assume that Lincoln's assassination was also a conspiracy?

One has to wonder where these screwy theories start.

 

-http://www.integratedconsultants.com/parasolid.htm

Good video

 

That was a great video. I wonder if they have one for the WTC. That pretty much puts the Pentagon impact to rest.

 

I still dont understand how they did not catch the huge ass plane on video!

 

They did. Keep in mind that most cheesey survelience cameras are not using 600 speed film like they do in the movies to slow the action down. It's there, you can even see the contrails.

 

speaking of contrails, you guys ever listen to Coast to Coast with Art Bell when he kept talking about the government poisoning us with chemicals distributed via contrails?

How's that for a conspiracy! Simple me thought they were just water vapor, but I haven't had a science class for a while...

 

Here is a nice explanation provided by the UWM Space Science and Engineering Center: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/c...imss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html

I should have been a bit more specific however. Technically what you see in the video are not really contrails (though they look like them); they are in fact the smoke billowing out of an engine that hit several light poles prior to impacting the Pentagon.

That Art Bell is a hoot though.

 

That was a pretty horrible video.

They don't address if the planes wings are even strong enough to rip out those light poles without sustaining great damage or nudging the plane off it's straight path.

They don't address where the wings and tail went upon hitting the building?

They don't address the impossible manavuering the plane supposedly did from the air to the ground.

Doesn't address the multiples of eye witnesses who swear they saw something other than a giant plane.

etc, etc.

 

Your LIFE is a pretty horrible video.

What the heck dude! The plane isn't going to barely EXIST in 2 seconds... who CARES what it can do to the lightpoles? If you have a plane going 500 MPH and it's piloted by a crazy extremist, it's NOT going to miss the PENTAGON, 150 feet away, because of a flimsy metal bar, for crying out loud.

Beside and behind the plane, durr... where else would they go? Arkansas?

I hardly consider a slight angle in the wings from close to the ground to be impossible. I also hardly consider a descent impossible. It happens every day on takeoffs and landings.

People don't lie, I forgot. .... You know, there ARE people that hate the government that would lie for kicks.

I'm kind of perterbed... you're defending the terrorists... and attacking the government. You are saying the terrorists never attacked us at the Pentagon. Do you believe that for New York City and Pennsylvania, too? You say it's a government conspiracy... and you are... defending the terrorists.

Why not move to Iraq or Afghanistan and get killed there? Here's why: because you're a wimp. You would never sign up for the armed forces to defend the freedoms you have to say and type stupid things like that.

 

And what happened to all those people on board?

And why were there no Dr. Pepper cans found?

How come it doesn't address the multiple eye witnesses who saw a herd of camels in pink tutu's galloping across the lawn? This would suggest it was a government plot against the People for Free Grazing Camel Society!

 

Why? Because you do not agree with the outcome?

Good point, except that most light poles are designed to break on impact, at their weekest point, the bolts. The poles themselves have give to them for environmental conditions, such as high winds. However, at the base where vehicles may come in contact with them, they are week by design to help lessen the impact during a collision.

You would also be surprised just how strong an airplane wing is. You can bend a 747's wings 17' (that's FEET) in either direction before a failure occurs.

Do keep in mind that the plane did sustain damage however, to it's starboard engine as a result of hitting the poles. Evidence of this is the result of the contrails I was speaking of earlier, clearly seen in the video.

Because that is quite obvious. They impacted the building.

What exactly is this "impossible manavuering" you are referring to? I've seen a commercial airliner do an intentional barrel roll. Could you be a little more specific?

And what "eye witnessnes" are these? If not a plane, what? A space ship? Godzilla?

And what is the "etc., etc." ?

 

Settle down, don't want to get rebanned on your first day back do you

Sure, whatever you say kid! How's 9th grade going?

 

That means, like last time when he (what's that other putz' name, the one who said Bush called himself king?) and his buds got owned in the other thread, after a point is debunked, they move on to a new one, then another, then another, then another.

Never angry though, that nutjobs come up with these easily disproved points, that make them look like complete tools!

"here's a hundred questions, answer them with science and witnesses!" That was so classical lazy young angry white male with low IQ and low self-esteem!

 

You mean first MONTH?

What the heck? I never said that.... I said that trying to destroy the American government and supporting terrorists is a terrorist act. By the way, I'm a junior; not a freshman... And, it's summer. See how educated you are?

 

Well for the first time today (well.. first post I took off ignore lol) you actually had more than a pointless comment! So here gos:

No because it's a little cartoon that doesn't really explain any of the underlying problems.

Planes crash after hitting lighting poles, and light poles can rip wings off.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20041122-0

Somehow I think you mean up/down... not back/forth. Either way, where's the source?

The wings/tail impacted the building and then? Just walked away? Just disapeared? Maybe they bent a full 180 degrees and slid into the building with the plane

Watch the video or do a google search. Lazyness gets you no where.

 

Yeah, I saw that. You have to remember though, yo! mtv raps isn't known for his integrity. He is known, but not for that

Hey yo! Do you have any more "aid and comfort" to give to the 9/11 terrorists?

 

Never have. Shouldn't you and the Christians be praying for them right now though? It does say your suppose to do good to them, so maybe you should be aiding and comforting them? Don't want to go against god's word now do you?

 

Oh, that is so sweet. Look man, you know you can't ignore me. You say you have me on ignore, but yet you always have some quippy remark ready to refute anything I say. You say are leaving (or should I say, pulling a "moq") and then don't.

Need I list the definition for "yo-yo" again?

What problems? I know you will never answer, so forget I asked again!

Look, I will take it easy on you here, since it is quite obvious you are speaking out of school. There is a huge difference between a Gulfstream Jet and a commercial airliner, e.g. a 757. I've flown in both. There is a world of difference in the strength and materials used.

You show me a B-757 that has had it's wings ripped off by light poles and I will gladly refrain from saying anymore on the topic.

According to Boeing Engineers:
The weight in each wing was composed of the following:
Exposed Wing Structure: 13,500 lb
Engine and Struts: 11,900 lb
Landing Gear: 3,800 lb (at that time tucked into the lower body of the aircraft)
Fuel: 14,600 lb
Total: 43,800 lb
The balance of the weight was in the fuselage. In the normal course of use, the center fuel tank is the last filled, and the first used. Thus the weight of the fuselage was 181,520-(2x43,800)= 93,920 lb. Of this, 36,200-(2x14,600)= 7,000lb was fuel in the center tank.

Given the tremendous forces exerted on the wings both during take off and landing, as well as in flight, I would be a little concerned if a light pole could decapitate a wing.

It's simple physics yo-yo, that's all.

From the information I posted above, the wings would have had some 40,000+ lbs of fuel in them, as with most everything else, they likely incinerated on impact. Most of them anyway. You assume no parts of the plane, including the wings where found in the debris, which is not true.

News video by a reporter on the scene captured a piece of the wing on file moments after the disaster. He recently showed this video in an effort to hush the conspiracy lunatics. You can clearly see a piece of the wing in the video. I would watch the video, and urge you to look for it yourself.

 

Heh... I'm not even advocating that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm just pointing out some of the "wholes" (haha) in that story.

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/witnesses.html

There's a collection of eyewitness reports, some corraborate the official story, others do not. How does one simply dismiss all the conflicting accounts as nonsense?

 

Well DURR... a jet sounds like a missile. A missile does not make plane-shaped holes in the wall of the PENTAGON, dangit.

Most of those eyewtiness reports are invalid...