9/11 - Page 2

grannyclaret · 22-08-2005, 11:28

get the website not responding.....................oh well

Tealeaf · 22-08-2005, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannyclaret

get the website not responding.....................oh well

Don't worry. You're not missing much..its just the usual American crackpot conspiracy theory. There's hundreds of 'em around. Its a little giggle at best.

garinda · 22-08-2005, 12:05

We stopped at a roadside caravan in the Trough of Bowland last week.

It was parked on a grassy knoll, she was called Di and he had sideburns.

It couldn't be?

Not the Queen of Hearts and the King of Roll 'n' Roll, running a mobile a greasy spoon in Lancashire???

Tinkerbelle · 22-08-2005, 12:12

mmm interesting footage but to be taken with as much credibility as the Presidency I think.

grego · 22-08-2005, 14:05

Great clip, dont really know what to think, weren't there a plane that crashed in a field close to the Pentagon or am I thinking of something else

baby boo · 22-08-2005, 15:14

yes there was but it crashed into a few houses tho if i remember rightly! i dont know what to think of the clip, we didnt really see much of the pentagon ""plane crash"" on tv, it was just mainly the towers, that they show.

Bazf · 22-08-2005, 15:48

Watched a great program on National Geographic last night called inside 9/11 have a look at some of the interviews and watch some of the videos you never know you may belive it actually happened.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/

mani · 22-08-2005, 19:20

i think the point that they didnt show much of this footage as compared to the towers is because the pentagon was a military target - the towers were civvy. it evokes more anger for innocents to die than military personel

Busman747 · 23-08-2005, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by mani

i think the point that they didnt show much of this footage as compared to the towers is because the pentagon was a military target - the towers were civvy. it evokes more anger for innocents to die than military personel

Well said Mani, ----but there must have been room on the T.V. coverage for both. The majority of members on this site DO remember that there was little said about the attack on the Pentagon,but because of the enormity of the twin towers, the attack on the Pentagon was "over-looked!"

I still do not know whether this is factual or a "mock" conspiracy film, but you have to admit, it is convincing. I would LOVE to have the American Government pull these "facts" to pieces,......But I don't think that will happen!

Tinkerbelle · 23-08-2005, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by grego

weren't there a plane that crashed in a field close to the Pentagon or am I thinking of something else

Was the plane that crashed into a field not brought down over Pennsylvania after passengers over powered the hostage takers? ............... I may be wrong ... I frequently am

Bazf · 23-08-2005, 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by mani

i think the point that they didnt show much of this footage as compared to the towers is because the pentagon was a military target - the towers were civvy. it evokes more anger for innocents to die than military personel

And the whole idea was to make people angry

chav1 · 23-08-2005, 00:41

i remember the footage of the pentagon been shown on bbc news and the pictures in that clip match what what was shown to my memory to both the bbc news and the film footage in 911/farenheit

although in the film 911/ farenheight some of the facts seemed to be stretched to suit micheal moors purpouses if not true he would have been sued and the film not allowed to be released one would think

ime not saying every theory about 911 is true but somthing stinks about the whole thing in my opinion and i thought that long before that clip was shown on here

each to their own i suppose lol

staggeringman · 23-08-2005, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

We stopped at a roadside caravan in the Trough of Bowland last week.

It was parked on a grassy knoll, she was called Di and he had sideburns.

It couldn't be?

Not the Queen of Hearts and the King of Roll 'n' Roll, running a mobile a greasy spoon in Lancashire???

gary did you not realise it was me and mands and less of the greasy thank you! your hot dog was grilled!

Doug · 23-08-2005, 01:23

High velocity impact by an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 would all but disappear. Speed at impact (the aircraft was in a dive) Weight x Ballistic force = terminal velocity + fuel load = partial evaporation, fragmentation and compression.

The cable drums showed where part of the refurbishment programmes in that that quadrant. The area of impacted was recently completed; otherwise the death toll would have been for grater

I once had the misfortune to see the impact of an RAF Phantom after it hit a hill side in Germany. 82% of the aircraft that was recoverable was. Not one piece was bigger than the hand that carried it. grim, very grim.

mani · 23-08-2005, 02:58

no hte point isnt to make people angry

the point is that if they see a civvy building being hit they have an inate fear that they may be next. their workplace, school or home.

even most americans know that they'll never work in the pentagon or a high target military building. but then chances of them workin in a high rise office block?

by focusing on th twin towers its playing on that fear of the possible attack. americans as gullible as they are fall for it and are angered that the terrorists hit innocent civilians and thus are prepared to back the prezy to do as he may.

its like this. what would anger u more? what would evoke more powerful emotions in u - images of the london bombings or images of some brit military base in iraq where a similar number of soliders died?