View Full Version : 9:11 - In Plane Site


tsp gatmog
09-15-2004, 07:17 PM
An interesting documentary on the events of 9/11. Deals with the pentagon attacks and the wtc.
http://zombtracker.the-zomb.com/browse.php

you'll need to register with zomb torrents, dont worry. it only takes 30 seconds, you dont even need to confirm the email. just choose password and username, and you can download it.

Nimrod's Son
09-15-2004, 10:24 PM
You are even more gullible than I thought.

http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=33961&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:00 AM |

In our view: Another addiction, conspiracy theory

The Daily Herald


Americans seem to thrive on conspiracy theories. Whether it's the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy, the connection between Al Qaida and Timothy McVeigh, the disaster at Waco, a government cover-up of UFOs or the fake moon landing of 1969, the suspicious and the paranoid can be counted upon to cook up scenarios and point to "evidence" calling official explanations into question.

It's like an addiction.

The latest drug of choice for conspiracy buffs is the so-called "documentary" 911 In Plane Site, which touts "amazing video and photographic evidence" illustrating that what the government says happened on Sept. 11, 2001, could not have happened. The producers would have us believe that unanswered questions abound, that pictorial evidence and eyewitness testimony show the possibility -- even probability -- that the government staged the whole thing (play Twilight Zone music here).

The presentation is not convincing. If nothing else, however, it is entertaining. The show poses a number of "big" questions that the producers found extremely troubling. Here are a few examples from the documentary, followed by our own cursory (but common sense) answers:

Why does photographic evidence taken moments after the event, show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon? Maybe because the aircraft didn't crash into the lawn. It might have cartwheeled in from a relatively high angle.

How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's third ring & leave a hole approximately 16 ft. across with no visible wreckage? We've seen plenty of plane crashes, and aluminum and magnesium aircraft are simply not designed to crash into things. When they do, they can be demolished beyond all recognition.

Was there a "pod" attached to the bottom of (United) "Flight 175" and, if so, why was it there? The photos are anything but conclusive. No pod is visible from a distance as the aircraft approaches.

What is the bright flash seen right before impact on both the North Tower and the South Tower? Might have been a reflection of each aircraft's landing lights off the buildings' windows. Landing lights are on the inboard end of the wings and a bright reflection would shine off the building an instant before, or concurrent with, impact.

Why did a FOX News employee report seeing no windows on Flight 175, a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Because United uses such a bland, gray paint scheme that it's hard to see windows even when its aircraft are parked at a terminal, let alone flying at 500 mph overhead. Besides, any detective in America will tell you that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The program hints that it was really a military aircraft, but if that's true, then several important questions are raised, like what happened to the hundreds of passengers that didn't show up at home that day?

Why did firefighters, reporters and other eyewitnesses describe a demolition-like, pancake collapse of the WTC? That's what a building like this sounds like when it collapses.

Why were there dozens of reports of bombs going off in and around the WTC before any buildings collapsed? Because a lot of noisy structural failures were going on inside the buildings at the time. Nobody knows of any "bombs," only loud noises that could be attributed to other sources.

While attempting to build a case for conspiracy, suggesting that our own government, not terrorists, brought down the buildings, 911 In Plane Site ignores some key facts. For instance, the producers don't bother explaining the cell phone calls to loved ones from passengers on United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. Terrorists were clearly at work in that aircraft; there is simply too much reliable testimony on that to deny it.

Nor does the presentation explain, if the attack planes were military, what happened to the commercial planes. It hints that they might have been shot down over the ocean. The trouble is that they weren't necessarily over the ocean. And who remembers an Atlantic crash of an airliner where debris such as luggage did not wash up all up and down the Eastern seaboard? If airliners went down in the sea, the secret could not have been kept for long.

It's fine to be entertained by this stuff, even if it is a bit morbid. But let's not lose our senses. Americans would do well to heed President Bush's advice in a speech shortly after the attacks. He said people should not allow themselves to be swept up by conspiracy theories.

At the same time, let us not be naive: Conspiracies of various magnitudes surely must develop from time to time in an enterprise as gigantic at the U.S. government and military -- witness Iran-Contra. A free press can ferret them out, but it doesn't always. Americans should always be on guard. A little suspicion of the government is a healthy thing as long as one doesn't get carried away.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5.

relaxor!
09-16-2004, 01:11 AM
Yeah, that shit with the Pentagon not showing enough damage after the 757 hit it. Guess what buddy, the Pentagon, the heart of many Military agencies, is designed to take a hit and be still standing. If a missile hit it, with a full warhead of even conventional explosives, the explosion would be far bigger than that of an airliner whose tanks aren't even close to full.
Of course it took that hit well. It was designed to survive many insane Cold War scenarios and still be an operational station. Not to say that it's NORAD or something, but it's a solid place.
Bleh, that's all.

tsp gatmog
09-16-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by relaxor!
Yeah, that shit with the Pentagon not showing enough damage after the 757 hit it. Guess what buddy, the Pentagon, the heart of many Military agencies, is designed to take a hit and be still standing. If a missile hit it, with a full warhead of even conventional explosives, the explosion would be far bigger than that of an airliner whose tanks aren't even close to full.
Of course it took that hit well. It was designed to survive many insane Cold War scenarios and still be an operational station. Not to say that it's NORAD or something, but it's a solid place.
Bleh, that's all.

it has nothing to do with whether or not the pentagon could handle the impact. just the size of the hole. the airplanes wings are far bigger than that of the hole.

I_was_aborted
09-16-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by tsp gatmog


it has nothing to do with whether or not the pentagon could handle the impact. just the size of the hole. the airplanes wings are far bigger than that of the hole.


But they happen to be about the size of an airplane engine, which would be the only thing with enough weight to punch a hole in those thick walls.