Government Conspiracy?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by kishba, Apr 5, 2002.

  1. kishba macrumors 6502a

    kishba

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Location:
    Michigan
    #1
  2. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #2
    certainly an interesting website...

    I don't know what I believe...but I did find it interesting how they weren't really saying too much about it after it happened...
     
  3. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #3
    I'm less concerned about this (rather naive) view

    What concerns me is the history of the CIA in Afghanistan. The CIA made Al Qaida what it is today, only at the time it was all against them pesky Russkies so nobody cared.

    The head of the CIA at the time was George Herbert Walker Bush.

    Osama Bin-Laden hit the World Trade Centre at exactly the right pollitical moment to save President Gump's career and exactly the right time of day to be seen by many people while many could escape. Collateral dammage was amazingly minimal when compared to what it would have been only an hour later.

    Why hit the Pentagon?

    If you're an international revolutionary nutcase you'd hit the Senate building.


    The whole thing stinks. It stinks like the magic bullet theory stunk.
     
  4. Quark macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    #4
    Interesting Post, although misplaced

    Another thing to note is that reporters recently showed footage of a security camera that supposedly captured the plane on still photos as it hit the building...

    But if you watched the clips, you will notice that it didn't capture the plane at all.

    One frame shows the side of the building, the next shows an explosion from the inside out -- which can happen in this sort of impact. But you don't see anything from the plane.

    Another reported also noted that small debris from the "plane" just started appearing on the lawn about 1/2-1 hour after the crash-- which no one saw before.

    Apple still rules though and I have to run cause the aliens are coaxing me back into the ship.... :) However, the above statements are factual... gleep, click-click, schewwww
     
  5. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    Hmmm...

    Interesting. But the question I have is this: aren't there people out there who lost friends/loved ones/coworkers who were on this flight? Hasn't the airline and flight number been released?

    This makes me wonder because I'm not sure I've heard anything about people on board or their relatives or the flight information. I most certainly could be wrong, though.

    The other question I have is why would the government want to make a truck bombing look like a plane bombing? What possible motive would they have? It just doesn't make sense.

    Matthew
     
  6. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #6
    Re: I'm less concerned about this (rather naive) view

    oh man...do tell....I'm always interested in that...he he he :p


    I agree...there just wasn't much attention drawn to it...maybe because it's the Pentagon? our source of National Security & Defense?!
     
  7. kishba thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kishba

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Location:
    Michigan
    #7
    well I never thought about searching for info on the plane that hit the pentagon

    i think i should do so when i find time

    if it wasn't a plane i'm beginning to worry about what caused the damage... my only theory involves a govt worker who was perhaps a spy... well i have a few silly theories but i'm not sure how much i want to think about this topic

    conspiracies freak me out
     
  8. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #8
    How far back would you like this theory to go?

    I have the US's "dark" hstory pretty well mapped. The whole thing went bad pretty fast.
     
  9. kishba thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kishba

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Location:
    Michigan
    #9
    Re: How far back would you like this theory to go?

    go ahead an e-mail me your "map"... i'd love to read it!
     
  10. iMax macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
  11. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #11
    Re: I'm less concerned about this (rather naive) view



    This is called "Blowback" and it happens a hell of a lot. Saddam Hussien is one of the most notable and recent one other than Al Qaida/Bin Laden.

    They bit the hand that feed them. Bastards!
     
  12. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #12
    I was in DC on Sept 11. I drive to work every day, passing by the Pentagon each morning and every evening. There were so many witnesses on the ground, but the clincher for me was my neighbor. She's a flight attendant for American Airlines and was supposed to be on that flight, #77 her usual flight, that morning, but a co-worker and friend asked her to switch schedules, making my neighbor take a late flight.

    That website is bs as far as I'm concerned, conspiracy theories be damned.
     
  13. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #13
    Im curious myself as to this issue. Someone needs to find out about the passangers in this flight ....AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT #77 - Boeing 757...the plane reported to have hit the Pentagon. I dont know of any other route since there really isnt any pictures of the plane hitting the pentagon. Creepy to say the least.
     
  14. kishba thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kishba

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Location:
    Michigan
    #14
    i don't want to be rude but are you absolutely sure that the plane actually crashed? again, i'm sorry for asking about a potentially touchy subject
     
  15. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #15


    im curious...why do you believe this issue is bs? please explain cause i would like an exlpanation. thanks.
     
  16. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #16
    This is really freaky. The only way that the plane could've hit the building and not done so much visibil damage is if it flew right into the first floor. Besides, something like that would've done a lot more damage. This is weird. It's also very sad...
     
  17. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #17
    I can't find the source right now, but it was on the reconstruction of the Pentagon. It might have been on the Discovery Channel or in a magazine. When I find it I'll post an image or two.

    Even though when you first look at the damage of the Pentagon it looks like only one section of it was damaged, it actually goes as far back as 4 sections. The outer ring was the only one that collapsed, but the other 3 inner ones had to have support columns replaced. I remember specifically the graphic showing which columns had been damaged.

    Every one saw the videos of the planes hitting the WTC. Not much of the actual planes were found in large pieces eithe. Once the plane explodes it effectively disintegrates. Thats what happened at the Pentagon. The plane does a belly flop, the wings fold back and the whole thing rips though 4 layers of the building.

    Ha, I went searching and found an even bette source. True, all you conspiracy guys will think that because its a DOD site, it can't be trusted. But I think the images speak for themselves.

    And I've attached an image that shows the area they had to remove, the parts that were damaged. Look this over and see what you think.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/g020307-D-6570C.html
     

    Attached Files:

  18. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #18
    You asked for it:

    1776-1789

    After a group of powerful British colonists declare their respective territories no longer under the British crown and the understandably panic'd response of Britain there was written a document that changed geo politics.

    The US constitution combined the best of Roman, Native American and British common law. It was an excellent start. Unfortunately any system that assumes all participants are rational and/or honorable is rather naive.


    Benjamin Franklyn and John Adams engage in the first "Watergate" style exchange of Dirty politics and suddenly there are Camps in the senate.


    1860-1865

    There is an economic war between the northern and southern states in which the industrial states of the North lobbied the Abolition of Slavery. This was no fight for democracy, this was a calculated attempt at killing the South off before it could Industrialize. If the South industrialized with labor Written off it'd kill the North.

    1890-1930:

    Kill the Hapsburgs. Kill the King.

    The gentry and royal families of Europe are killed off and money is borrowed from the US to rebuild and form democracys.

    1930-1945:

    Kill the intellectual.

    The end of Imperialism saw the brief rise of the Selfish Bohemian. Europe explodes in the most psychotic war the world has ever seen.

    The New Deal confound the IRS with the Tax Code.......the most infernal act of encryption in history. Suddenly all American citizens must be taxed twice. Huge money is borrowed from the Rothschilds and others to keep the Federal Reserve afloat. Effectively selling the country to these families. This is the money called the National Deficit. If we ever pay it off that goes away.

    Ford builds for the US Chrysler (now Chrysler/Daimler) builds for Germany by way of Scandanavia.

    The Emperor of Japan loses his mind and attacks China, Australia, The USA, Canada and Britain. The US converts itself to an arms factory in less than 2 years.

    The Atomic bomb is used to Break Japan's back........also as an act of intimidation to Stalin.

    1945-1963

    The US lends freakish amounts of money to Europe and Japan to rebuild.

    President JFK attacks the US Mafia through his brother Robert and they are both promtly dispatched by Corsican gunmen. The FBI is co-opted in the process: A Don got ahold of pics of J Edgar Hoover (damn funny pun really).

    1963-1975

    The US and Russia grab madly for allies and resources worldwide. A bloody hellhole is made of south East Asia. Police states abound in both the USSR and the USA. Both Nations enter the world's ellicit drug trade.

    1975-1990

    The US simultaniously breaks the backs of it's workforce and engages several nations worldwide and is finger-wagged by the UN the whole time. The CIA makes business deals while the US is robbed blind by the KGB.

    USSR builds a small simple and robust millitary. Other nations are brough into the game in their colours. Continued expense in maintaining itself kills the USSR.

    1990-present

    Small nations do a number of grotesque things to themselves and others. Large nations occasionally (for their own intrests) beat down a certain number of these.

    9/11/01

    Two Boeing jets full of fuel hit and burn the WTC......dropping it every bit as precisely as Detcord. Worldwide thousands of structural engineers vomit simultaniously. A third jet hits the ground at a sharp angle. An explosion and accompanying LOUD NOISE. Blows a hole in the Pentagon. It is a foggy and dreary morning in DC.

    Osama Bin Laden is presented on Tape being silly enough to claim responsability. The US goes insane and stomps Afghanistan into 125' deep pea gravel.



    Ask questions.:D
     
  19. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #19
    where'd you get that from mischief?


    can anyone say Illuminati!!! ....Shadow Government!


    im sorry... i just had to say it.



    :D
     
  20. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #20
    Private research.

    It helps to be Canadian.

    Want an interesting read?

    Go read the Canadian Constitution.:D

    Ciao
     
  21. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    Pentagon Burning

    Oh, and I forgot. When we saw that the Pentagon was bombed on the tv at work, I rushed to the roof and could see it burning, black smoke pouring out, travelling up for quite a distance. Now at that time we had all heard on from the reporters that it was a truck bomb, but as we watched, it just kept burning and burning.

    Bombs explode, big boom, smoke and fire for a little while, then it calms down.

    There had to be something keeping the fire going, and as we stood there watching it, we all knew it had to be more than a truck bomb. We later found out that it was a plane, and that made more sense.

    And I didn't see my neighbor for a couple days after the crash, she was having a really hard time dealing with it, for all she knew it should have been her on that plane.

    So, that's all my proof. Not exactly ironclad, but I think more than enough to dispell anything you found in the link at the top of the post.

    I hoped this helped.
     
  22. wake up Jobs!!! macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    #22
    huuummmmmmm- good, very goood

    Well, I have put much thought into these pictures and I have came to the conclusion that the explosion that happened on sept. 11 in D.C. was not caused by a plane- 757, but by a smaller object, possibly a truck with a bomb or somthing of that size. But it is strange, there is no tire tracks, no visible hole a truck traveled in , or debris from the truck. this tells me that it was not caused by a truck, but by a explosion inside, one of such magnatude that a person carrieing a bomb is allmost ruled out, but this could have been what happened. Picture this, a employee of the pentagon working in this section of the building, secretly planing to use himself as a mortar in this attack, straps himself to a bomb and blows himself up. Knowone knows it was him because he died,and I assume is dicapitated, and because he does it in a private place, were know one can see him do it, possibly his office. Everyone would think he died in the attack as a bystandard. The explosion cripples the section leaving everyone to think it is a attack of a large magnatude, even though it is not. This is what I think happened at the Pentagon.
    Comments are needed-



    The only strage thing is that...... all this intelectual writing came from a 14 year old.:D
     
  23. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #23
    Accoding to that article, the plane was going between 250 and 600 MPH, as opposed to a consistent 600 MPH in mid-air. So why should we expect the plane to plow through more than one layer of the concrete and rebar pentagon at ~250 when the planes hitting the steel and concrete world trade center at 600 didn't go clean through?

    And where did they get wrecked airplane fuselage in time to scatter it around the crash if it didn't come from an airplane? And why would the government want to make it look like something else? Terrorism is terrorism. And where is that airplane if it didn't crash there?

    As for covering the lawn with sand and gravel, how about direct vehicle access for demo teams? They have to haul out all that crap and haul in a bunch of new crap!

    Too full of holes.
     
  24. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #24
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

    Read it. After quite a while of urban-legend debunking, I trust snopes implicitly. Plus they've got facts to back their arguement up, which no one else seems to...

    pnw
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    What's really sad here is how some French guy can exploit a tragedy in another country to get attention, and no doubt a healthy remuneration, for himself, and how some people will uncritically accept the most bizarre theories, apparently simply because they're more interesting.

    I'll be happy to address the questions posed by this site:

    Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

    The Pentagon is a hardened military structure designed to survive a reasonable amount of damage in case of attack. A Boeing 757 is a piece of aerospace hardware designed to remain in the air in a maximally efficient way. Relatively speaking, this is like trying to shoot someone with a large bullet made of cardboard and wondering why it only produces a nasty surface welt. Also, unlike the World Trade Centers, which could be approached mostly head-on, the Pentagon is a low structure. Hitting it requires a rapid descent, which makes it difficult to control speed (not that the pilot would have wanted to control speed anyway). The plane was not only flying into the building. It was also flying into the ground.

    Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

    The cockpit of the 757 is 11 feet off the ground when the plane is sitting on its landing gear. Presumably the pilot did not bother to lower the gear on approach. Why did he hit the first floor? Well, he had to hit somewhere, didn't he? Also see the above answer and consider the difficulties involved in controlling and aiming an airplane traveling upwards of 250mph at near ground level. At those speeds things are changing much faster than human ability to perceive and react to them. People who operate ground vehicles at very high speeds describe the "tunnel vision" effect which results.

    You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

    You'll remember that the planes which hit the WTC, which you saw with your own two eyes, went into the building and vanished. They disintegrated on impact. Had the planes remained intact, they would have emerged from the other side of the buildings. Instead, all you saw was a fireball and debris. And the durability of construction in a skyscraper is nothing compared to that of the Pentagon.

    Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

    That lawn was about to be host to a wide assortment of heavy construction vehicles, and a nice, well-manicured lawn doesn't make the best surface for that sort of thing. Water from fire hoses had likely turned the lawn into something of a mire anyway.

    Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

    By my estimate, the first picture in the pairing here overestimates the size of a 757 relative to the Pentagon by 2-5%. It's more difficult to tell with the second picture, since only a very narrow shot of the damage to the building is shown, and the overlaid plane is not positioned properly with respect to perspective. But if you look closely at the second picture, you'll see that the facade of the building has actually sustained quite a bit of damage to either side of the main cavity. The wings of the plane themselves would not be rigid enough to rip holes through the building in the distinctive way we probably all remember from the WTC videos (where you should remember that the WTC's first line of defense was a big wall of glass). At the Pentagon, the wings sheared immediately on impact and were pulled into the building alongside the plane.

    Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

    Even the no doubt carefully selected quote on that page seems to me to be an answer to the question. He told us exactly where the aircraft was. It was in very, very small pieces, the result of smashing through a very large piece of metal and concrete. This is actually the expected result of such an interaction. Also note the break in quotation between the answer to the question and the supposed "evasive" answer, which is actually unrelated to the question, and was most likely actually a response to another question altogether.

    Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

    Well not in those pictures, no. The foreground is dominated by smoke and spray from fire hoses.

    This entire theory is ridiculous, and the implications are beyond credibility. If you suppose that the attack on the Pentagon was a government conspiracy, then you must recognize that a bureaucracy like the U.S. government can barely decide what to have for lunch in under a month, much less form an airtight conspiracy, complete with partial destruction of the nation's main military installation, in under an hour. Therefore the unstated implication is that the U.S. government orchestrated all the events of September 11. This begs the question, if "they" were able to put planes into the WTC and crash a third in Pennsylvania, and wanted the effect of flying a plane into the Pentagon, why wouldn't "they" just fly another plane into the Pentagon?

    I dunno, I tend to think that some people make up these crazy notions to get attention, and others buy into them because it's much easier to speculate about a world you suppose to be completely outside your control than it is to actually get off your ass and do something to address real (if more mundane) issues which could actually benefit from such attention.
     

Share This Page