1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Find the Boeing

Discussion in 'The OT' started by -, Mar 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guest

    This site is ridiculous. What about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of witnesses that saw the jetliner crash into the Pentagon? Or, how about those traveling on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon? Did the government determine every individual that traveled on Interstate 395 that fateful morning and surreptitiously seek them out and methodically brainwash each one of them into thinking they didn't really see what they thought they saw traveling a hundred feet over the hoods of their cars???

    You've got to kidding me. The Pentagon, like every other hardened military facility, is designed to withstand just such an attack. Why can't people accept that there WASN'T a government conspiracy this time around and that is was instead a handful of individuals who found a vulnerability and exploited that vulnerability on a large scale. Why? Because that's exactly what happened!
     
  2. Guest

    that many disasters in the past (Challenger explosion, WTC/Pentagon, and others) may have been advanced by Bureacratic inactivity or incompetance in some arenas or lack of funding to do proper procedures. And I could even believe in the coverups to hide such facts. But these conspiracys that seem to involve everyone ELSE in the world except us for some dark purpose (in a "Wag the Dog" level of involvement) pushes the limits of believeability
     
  3. Guest

    "You spit on the graves of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who died at the Pentagon on September 11th."

    No I didn't. I wasn't even there.

    "As a solider and former airman, I am deeply saddened that the citizens that we have sworn to defend feel this way about us."

    Feel like what? That I don't buy the governments BS story about what happened? I don't and it has no reflection on my view about you as a soilder. I'm sure 98% of the people don't know what's going on and and that includes the military and the government. I'm not sure if Bush even knows anything. Look up

    www.infowars.com/resources.html
     
  4. Guest

    BTW, there is no way in hell that was a 757 in the video. It was either a small aircraft or cruise missile from what I can see.
     
  5. Guest

    What qualifies you to say that millions of meople are wrong? Are you a cinematographer? Explosives expert? Terrorist? Or maybe just some whacko who thinks people have nothing better to do than concern themselves with you?
     
  6. Guest

    Again, there are freeways and or highways on all sides of the Pentagon. Explain how the government could pull off such a massive brainwashing of hundreds (maybe thousands) of eyewitnesses to a 757 crashing into the Pentagon???

    Yet one yahoo extracts an entire conspiracy from a grainy, barely intelligible video and your right on his heels. Was he there? Where you there? I doubt either is true. Who's the brainwashed one here?
     
  7. Guest

    Let's see here, we have a video frame from a FIXED security camera (the highest quality image capture known to man). We have an aircraft traveling at about 400 MPH (conservatively). 400 MPH = 6.666 Miles per minute (uh oh, there's a 666 number, Rage is right, it is a consperacy). 6.666 MPM = .1111 miles per second. .111MPS = 586 feet per second. A security camera normally records 5-6 frames per second (if that). So, in the space of one frame the aircraft traveled nearly 100'. I have serious doubts that a FIXED security camera is designed to record this kind of movement. Expecting a frame from this camera to record a usable image of anything moving at such speeds is just plain silly (but then I would expect nothing more though from consperacy freeks). Face it Rage, the consperacy nuts out there are taking advantage of you just to sell you tapes, and you fall for it all. All they do is take advantage of weak minds. I am sure they welcome you to the club with open arms. Don't you have to paint the trailer of some such thing?

    Please explain how those hundreds of people who witnessed the plane flying low overhead were all brainwashed into thinking they saw something that didn't exist. Until you can do this you just look like a fruitcake.
     
  8. Guest

    Eyewitness acounts mean nothing to me. It was first reported that a small plane hit the first tower and a cargo plane hit the second. So most people don't know one plane from another. I can't say that a 77 didn't hit it, however, I can say there was no 757 in the video provided. This plane was no bigger than an F-16 which is clearly seen in the frames of that video. So the video is either faked of there wasn't a 757 at all.

    "Face it Rage, the consperacy nuts out there are taking advantage of you just to sell you tapes, and you fall for it all"

    You really are stupid aren't you? And the proof is that you never even seen the video and instead make an uneducated guess rather than dismiss it after investigating it. You're the epitome of stupidity.
    The fact is that this film in nothing more than a documentation of video, newsclips (many I've read on the net) and a few other goodies. But yet the great, Rking, know-it-all, knows it's bunk without even seeing it.:rollin:
     
  9. Guest

    Rage,

    I read your last post and
    pause
    pause
    pause
    I had to stop laughing first before I could type any more. I was a F-16 mechanic for three years, and even with external fuel tanks, there is no way a lawn dart (F-16) could punch a hole that size into the Pentagon and cause that large of a fire.

    A F-16 is a tiny aircraft that can't even fly cross-country without refueling, even with external tanks. If an idiot was going to fly a fighter into a building, the F-16 is the last plane a person would ever use. I'm sure you will have a response for this like there were napalm bombs on board, etc. You'll never convince me that a F-16 did what you say it did. Since you have never served your country in any way, you have no firsthand knowledge of military equipment or personnel. Must suck to no trust anyone.

    I know this is useless, so it will be my last post on the subject. Enjoy your paranoia.
     
  10. Guest

    "A F-16 is a tiny aircraft that can't even fly cross-country without refueling, even with external tanks. If an idiot was going to fly a fighter into a building, the F-16 is the last plane a person would ever use. I'm sure you will have a response for this like there were napalm bombs on board, etc."

    That is correct. The F-16 was probably armed with something if that's what it was. It's closer to a F-16
    than any commercial aircraft.


    "You'll never convince me that a F-16 did what you say it did."

    You're free to whatever opinion you desire to have.


    "Since you have never served your country in any way, you have no firsthand knowledge of military equipment or personnel. Must suck to no trust anyone."

    Actually, I've always been into military aircraft since I was a kid and know more than most of the general population and probably more than most military personnel unless they were directly involved with the stuff. I've done hours and hours of research on them because I wanted to be a fighter pilot until I was disqualified because of my vision. Which is a good thing in hindsight because I don't want to work for people who will deny I exist if I ever got captured by the enemy.
     
  11. Guest

    Rage, do you find yourself watching the X-Files pointing at the television and saying out loud, "See, I told you so!" ???

    "It was first reported that a small plane hit the first tower and a cargo plane hit the second. So most people don't know one plane from another."

    No it wasn't. It depended on which news outlet you were watching at the time.

    I switched on the New York NBC affiliate the instant I heard the news on the radio and only moments before the second plane hit. They were talking to eyewitness callers to the station who said over and over again that it was a "large airliner" and all the newscasters would say was this they had "unconfirmed reports" of large and small aircraft from various sources.

    Meanwhile, MSNBC was reporting a small sircraft because nobody believed that the building would still be standing if it had been struck by a 757 or 767.

    Fall for all the contrived B.S. you want, Rage. It's a free country...

    ...or, is it??? (insert X-files theme music here)
     
  12. Guest

    "Meanwhile, MSNBC was reporting a small sircraft because nobody believed that the building would still be standing if it had been struck by a 757 or 767."

    I don't know why not when it was designed to with-stand a 737. The 767 may weigh more but the speeds are close.
     
  13. Guest

    more weight (mass)= more inertial force. It would take a longer distance (or thicker wall) to stop a loaded semi truck vs. an unloaded truck.
     
  14. Guest

    We know that now, but who was repeating that information AS the events were happening???

    ...and, the World Trade Center was designed during the early '60s to generally absorb a hit (but, not necessarily the subsequent fire) by a 707. The 737 didn't make it's debut until the '70s.

    On the other hand, the Pentagon is reinforced and designed to sustain low damages in the case of a direct missile attack.
     
  15. Guest

    "and, the World Trade Center was designed during the early '60s to generally absorb a hit (but, not necessarily the subsequent fire) by a 707. The 737 didn't make it's debut until the '70s."

    The designer stated a 737. So he must have built it to withstand future planes.
     
  16. Guest

    The 737 was a conversion of sorts from the 707... the fuselage design was taken directly from the 707/727 to get it to market quickly, with the only major change being the removal of the flight engineer seat from the cockpit. First flight was 4/9/67, and my guess is that design work on the WTC was probably complete by then.

    Besides, I remember hearing that the WTC designer based his calculations on the 707, which was the largest commercial jet at that time.
     
  17. Guest

    None the less, they did withstand the impact of the 767's. On how or why the towers collpased is another story.
     
  18. Guest

    That the immense heat of the burning fuel destroyed the supports of the floors above the impact and they pancaked and collapsed sending the rest of the damaged structure on it's way down.
     
  19. Guest

    My source states that they have witnesses that seen a small plane (like the F-16) followed by a C-130 which would have been the control plane for making the F-16 or whatever it was into a pilot-less missile. Of course the government could prove me wrong if they would only release other video from there from other angles which they possess.

    They would also kill any conspiracy with the jet that crashed in Rockaway, Queens if they would only release the video that was captured by a surveillance camera.

    Then you have the the government expecting us to believe that the paper passport of a hijacker survived the WTC attack while the well built voice recorders didn't.

    Then we have the government refusing to release flight 93's recorders even to family members.

    Their entire story about anything is pure bullsh*t!

    The NY Times even reported that the '93 WTC attack was allowed by the FBI or the top people who run it.

    No we have people that want to sue Iraq over its involvement in the '95 Oklamhoma City bombing. I told you five years ago or more that the government was behind it. We had a lousy president with a 36% approval rating and anti-terrorism leglislation going nowhere in the Congress.

    BOOM! The anti-terrorism bill gets passed and Clinton's approval rating goes up at the same time.
    Not to mention a gun ban on top of it. Then he gets the media and the government to attack his enemies which included patriots, Christains, gun owners, and other conservatives.

    While you were calling me a conspiracy theroist, I knew that Iraqi Republican Guard was behind it because the evidence only pointed to that conclusion. In the mean time you were buying the government's and media's bullsh*t story hook, line, and sinker just like you're buying their story about the WTC.

    I knew that Bush brought in 3000-4000 of the Iraqi (elite)Republican Guard after the "Gulf war" and spread them out around the country in cells for future terror attacks. I bet that's who gave support to the current 9/11 attacks. I know that the John Doe #3 (I forget his real name) was behing Oklamhoma then went to work at Boston's airport. This isn't even debatable.


    So you will see in the coming weeks that Iraq (Iraqi people not necessarily working for that country but for Bush) was behind the Oklahoma attack. But the damage is already done to the militia and other groups regardless of this outcome because the demonization that went on for years by the media and movies.

    As for McVeigh... I've heard credible but incomplete reports like:

    He was a dupe that was involved in the plot.
    People have pics of the BATF training and he is there or somebody who looks like him-- thus a government agent. Or he was totally innocent and the government grabbed him, beat him, drugged him, et cetera. He said that he had a computer chip up his ass. Maybe he was telling the truth. The only thing I know is that Bush's Iraqi Republican guard was behind that.

    You will probably hear the same if they think this info is needed to help the support of the coming war against Iraq.
     
  20. Guest

    Another thing:

    (At the time) If Tim McVeigh pulled this off by himself then fine, then show us the damn video evidence showing him doing it. Instead, not only did you confiscate the surveillance videos (evidence), you took down the f*****g cameras so people wouldn’t ask questions. Then you destroyed the crime scene ASAP and buried the building under ground then quickly cemented it and hired Pinkerton guards to protect it.

    This government more than deserves every f*****g conspiracy theory aimed its direction. And most of them aren't even conspiracies but government cover-ups.

    These are the same b*stards who experimented with LSD on its citizens unknowingly during the '50s along with radiation and chemical weapons delivery systems.
    That was at a time when people thought the government was moral. Just think what these f***ers are doing to us today. Chem-trails anyone?

    [Admin Note- Edited for grafic language]
    [Rage, I ask you once again to not to drop the Fbomb here and try to refain from the profinity, thanks]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page