Folks...its official

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:09 am

Because there's little publicly released data, one must make a leap of faith- either believing it was a cover up, or it just happened.

I believe the US Government (and Dubya in particular) sucks balls either way.

-istp

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:11 pm

Those kids are getting mucho pussy with their fame. Good for them!

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:35 pm

Thanks haz. Those are the first pictures I've seen of wreckage from the Pentagon site. OK Loose Change is full of shit.

-istp

goates · Post by **goates** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:59 pm

Take a look through this site too if you have more questions about the conspiracy theories.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

gowest · Post by **gowest** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:16 pm

well, its pretty obvious, those 2 PM guys had a big sweat going thru that debat, the 2 kids knew their part much better...

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:24 pm

gowest wrote:well, its pretty obvious, those 2 PM guys had a big sweat going thru that debat, the 2 kids knew their part much better...

Did you see the same video as I?

helijason · Post by **helijason** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:51 pm

yes it definately is official. Those two kids are officially the stupidest people i have ever had the displeasure if listening to.

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:14 am

And you had to see another documentary to tell you it was full of shit? Hell im usually the first one here to be accused of being a leftwing nut job and when I saw that trollop a few years ago when it first came out I thought it was pretty obvious that these kids didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. I mean hell trying to say that the color of the explosion was wrong?! OMG-WTF!?

Idriveplane · Post by **Idriveplane** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:24 am

All it is are two stupid young shits trying to get a name out for themselves. They have no idea what their talking about

gowest · Post by **gowest** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:07 am

well, the 2 kids were able to give precise argumentation while the PM guys' only line of defence was " WE talked to the experts, We have seen pictures that nobody elses has..."

You guys have pretty short memories, the official version was telling us that the 757 completly melted away on impact in the pentagon but the bodies where still there to get ADN? and now we see pictures of a couple of FBI guy walking around with the same pieces of metal in their hands... so if those pieces didn't melt with the rest of the plane, where the hell is the tail section?

The pentagon "crash" site doesn't look like any other airliner crash in history... but you're right guys, let's stick to the official fairytale, the truth would be way to hard to handle...

talkinghead · Post by **talkinghead** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:24 am

Cell phones do not work at those alt. and speeds.
I have tried it, flying over large citys.
There is no way you can get a call in for longer then about 3-5 secs.(with some luck)
IMHO there is something that does not add up, the cell phone call thing is just a start.

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:02 am

The pentagon "crash" site doesn't look like any other airliner crash in history... but you're right guys, let's stick to the official fairytale, the truth would be way to hard to handle...

And why would it look like any other crash site in history?

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:04 am

talkinghead wrote:Cell phones do not work at those alt. and speeds.
I have tried it, flying over large citys.
There is no way you can get a call in for longer then about 3-5 secs.(with some luck)
IMHO there is something that does not add up, the cell phone call thing is just a start.

How many different cells phones did you try this with? They are all different, and some have much better reception than others, especially analog ones. One person trying with one or two phones does not make a scientific experiment that can be used to conclude it is not possible with all cell phones.

talkinghead · Post by **talkinghead** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:49 am

goates wrote: How many different cells phones did you try this with? They are all different, and some have much better reception than others, especially analog ones. One person trying with one or two phones does not make a scientific experiment that can be used to conclude it is not possible with all cell phones.

Three differnt phones, two different services a number of different times.
The best I could get was at about 10000 ft. slowing dn for an aproach.
And I never said it was scientific.
IMO it just cant be done. Take it or leave it.
I guess those pax had the phones that work. ??
Its just one of the many things that just do not add up about that shitty day.

gowest · Post by **gowest** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:11 pm

goates wrote:
The pentagon "crash" site doesn't look like any other airliner crash in history... but you're right guys, let's stick to the official fairytale, the truth would be way to hard to handle...
And why would it look like any other crash site in history?

well, it doesn't, any other crash site, what ever the speed or angle of impact you would find the tail section and/or engines...

prove me wrong!

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:19 pm

talkinghead wrote:Three differnt phones, two different services a number of different times.
The best I could get was at about 10000 ft. slowing dn for an aproach.
And I never said it was scientific.
IMO it just cant be done. Take it or leave it.
I guess those pax had the phones that work. ??
Its just one of the many things that just do not add up about that shitty day.

Another point is that cell towers can have rangs from half a mile up to 20 miles. Towers in rural areas probably have longer ranges which aren't just horizontal. Cell towers in urban areas aremore likely to have shorter ranges due more obstacles getting the way, thus needing more towers to properly cover a given area. A tower with 5-6 mile range cold easily reach FL250.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_network

Not everything about the day adds up, but the "proof" in the Loose Change is very short on actual research. They find one point that isn't completely explained and provide it as proof. While the PM guys could have used a little practice with live debate, they have at least tried to do the full research a journalist should be doing.

For the lack of aircraft wreckage in both the Pentagon and United 93 cases, take a look at the photos from the 737 accidents caused by the rudder malfunctioning. There isn't much left of either plane, certainly not a complete tail section that people seem to think should have been sitting nicely on the Pentagon's lawn.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/427-585.html

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:49 pm

gowest wrote:
goates wrote:
The pentagon "crash" site doesn't look like any other airliner crash in history... but you're right guys, let's stick to the official fairytale, the truth would be way to hard to handle...
And why would it look like any other crash site in history?
well, it doesn't, any other crash site, what ever the speed or angle of impact you would find the tail section and/or engines...

prove me wrong!

As the PM guys pointed out, they spoke with researchers at Purdue university who modelled the Pentagon crash and found that it fit just fine.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

gowest · Post by **gowest** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:58 pm

Excellent pictures goates, thanks for the links!

USAir Flight 427
Aliquippa, PA
September 8, 1994
Boeing 737-300

that looks pretty much lika a tail section to me...

that one too...

[/img]

talkinghead · Post by **talkinghead** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:01 pm

My cell phone, at any given time will show an indication that I am in range of a tower BUT the min. I attempt a call it will not go through. Showing service and having service are two differnt things.
The only reason I am harping on this is because I have tried it and it does not seem to work.
I HAVE my doughts about alot of other things about that day but I cant go give it try. For instance I can not take a 757 a smash it into a concrete wall to see what is left.
Now on-to the more juicy stuff, what happend to building 7 .....no, really what happend to it. The story they are giving us is got to be B.S.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:06 pm

Why does it have to be BS?

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

talkinghead · Post by **talkinghead** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:19 pm

oh boy! you got me

Idriveplane · Post by **Idriveplane** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:34 pm

Anyone thinking that there should be much left (Ie. tail section, etc)should think otherwise and watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

gowest · Post by **gowest** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:53 pm

Nice video but you can't compare a 757 and a F-4 or the wall of the pentagon with that huge concret bloc, nice try....

goates, great site again , using pictures that are actually harming the official version

that shows the impact (in the square) on the facade before the collaspe

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

no debris, no impact signs of the wings/engines... Yes, it doesn't look like any other airplane crash site...

Idriveplane · Post by **Idriveplane** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:28 pm

Have a read on this page for all you non believers:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

goates · Post by **goates** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:07 pm

goates, great site again , using pictures that are actually harming the official version

Now take what little was left in those accidents and drop a few tons of concrete and burning rubble on top of it. What do you think you will find? Not much.

You use one photo that doesn't have any obvious debris and claim there isn't any sign of a plane anywhere, so please explain the link provided by Idriveplane.