Tweet
I find it disturbing Vel, that you buy into this mess at all.
Why is that? There are unanswered questions. I'm curious.
There was a report of a truck bomb at the capitol that proved groundless, why should we be concerned that someone assumed that a truck bomb was used at the Pentegon? After all, prior to 9/11, truck bombs were the big thing.
Agreed. But don't you find it curious that a hole, supposedly big enough to fit a Boeing 747 (with the wings being sucked in after it), was somehow mistaken for a truck bombing? I mean...I've seen some pretty big trucks before, but that's gotta take the cake! Seems like an extraordinarily large mistake to make.
I find no problem with the idea that the plane may have grazed the ground at a slight angle before impact with the building. In such case I wouldn't expect much in the way of damage. Low odds, sure, but stuff happens.
The only problem I have with it is that there's no marks on the ground indicating such an impact, grazing or no. And a "grazing impact" is not what the official report indicated.
So what if they didn't release all of the video. Given how vunerable we remain to this sort of attack, I can understand it.
Why would this matter? It's not like the video would provide a blueprint for would-be hijackers.
He did a better job in one post than all conspiracy theorists (including Serb and VJ) did in 1,000 websites, posts and videos. Serb VJ
Thank you. Partly, this is because I am not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just...curious. That's all. And I think there are valid questions out there that don't have answers. I'm not gonna leap out at any hair-brained theory that comes along, but that does not mean that there aren't still questions.
1: From what I understand: it bounced on the ground first. Not plowed through.
Bounced, plowed...whatever. Where's the point of impact? It ain't there. That's interesting to me.
2: I would expect the security services of the Ministry of Defence to have just THAT speed of operation if they are to have any competence.
If this were so, then why were they so slow on the draw in intercepting the planes? Oh...if they could have been so swift to do THAT as they were to confiscate a few video tapes!
3: FIRST story. First official story as well? I was happily doing my own business that day, so I didn't sit glued to the telly that day, but IIRC the truck-bomb was a first MEDIA story.
Take any report at face-value, especialy when it's 'breaking news'.
Unknown (at least by me). And conveniently enough, there appears to be no archived evidence either way on the 'net. That too, is curious.
Well, Vel, come up a "theory" then that explains it all.
Okay, theory 1: Oops. Our bad.
Similar to the plane in Penn., the passengers on board attempt to commandeer the plane, but unlike their counterparts in Penn, they are successful. Not knowing quite what to do, they steer the plane out over the open sea. In the confusion, an order is given to shoot it down and remove the threat. Rather than directing national outrage at the WhiteHouse, better to keep it focused squarely on "the brown people," so we'll just say that it hit the pentagon anyway (which was undeniably hit by SOMETHING), and then we don't have to fess up to killing a few hundred of our own.
Theory 1a:
The renegade pilot had a change of heart. He would not be the first "warrior" who decided that he'd rather not be blown to bits. So, rather than fly into his selected target, and into the arms of his seventy virgins, he took it out to sea. Intercepted by a scrambled f-16, and boom.
Theory 1b:
The renegade pilot was really as clueless as his instructor made him out to be. He could barely control the plane, and wound up taking it off the coast, rather than over a hard target. Still shot down, but questions would be raised...if we were so quick to nab this one, why not over NY? Might "look bad" that we scrambled to rescue the white house, but not the people of NY. Could be a publicity fiasco. Better just say it hit the Pentagon and be done with it.
I'm not saying any of these are right. But all of them would explain the relative LACK of plane-ness on the lawn.
Do you really think that the admin staged these attacks to provoke public opinion so that a war with Iraq would be possible?
Nope. That would be giving this administration far more credit than it is due.
And do you think it was all a scheme by Texas oilmen? And what connection do you make between this and JFK's death?
LOL!
I don't often think on such things.
-=Vel=-
Why is that? There are unanswered questions. I'm curious.
There was a report of a truck bomb at the capitol that proved groundless, why should we be concerned that someone assumed that a truck bomb was used at the Pentegon? After all, prior to 9/11, truck bombs were the big thing.
Agreed. But don't you find it curious that a hole, supposedly big enough to fit a Boeing 747 (with the wings being sucked in after it), was somehow mistaken for a truck bombing? I mean...I've seen some pretty big trucks before, but that's gotta take the cake! Seems like an extraordinarily large mistake to make.
I find no problem with the idea that the plane may have grazed the ground at a slight angle before impact with the building. In such case I wouldn't expect much in the way of damage. Low odds, sure, but stuff happens.
The only problem I have with it is that there's no marks on the ground indicating such an impact, grazing or no. And a "grazing impact" is not what the official report indicated.
So what if they didn't release all of the video. Given how vunerable we remain to this sort of attack, I can understand it.
Why would this matter? It's not like the video would provide a blueprint for would-be hijackers.
He did a better job in one post than all conspiracy theorists (including Serb and VJ) did in 1,000 websites, posts and videos. Serb VJ
Thank you. Partly, this is because I am not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just...curious. That's all. And I think there are valid questions out there that don't have answers. I'm not gonna leap out at any hair-brained theory that comes along, but that does not mean that there aren't still questions.
1: From what I understand: it bounced on the ground first. Not plowed through.
Bounced, plowed...whatever. Where's the point of impact? It ain't there. That's interesting to me.
2: I would expect the security services of the Ministry of Defence to have just THAT speed of operation if they are to have any competence.
If this were so, then why were they so slow on the draw in intercepting the planes? Oh...if they could have been so swift to do THAT as they were to confiscate a few video tapes!
3: FIRST story. First official story as well? I was happily doing my own business that day, so I didn't sit glued to the telly that day, but IIRC the truck-bomb was a first MEDIA story.
Take any report at face-value, especialy when it's 'breaking news'.
Unknown (at least by me). And conveniently enough, there appears to be no archived evidence either way on the 'net. That too, is curious.
Well, Vel, come up a "theory" then that explains it all.
Okay, theory 1: Oops. Our bad.
Similar to the plane in Penn., the passengers on board attempt to commandeer the plane, but unlike their counterparts in Penn, they are successful. Not knowing quite what to do, they steer the plane out over the open sea. In the confusion, an order is given to shoot it down and remove the threat. Rather than directing national outrage at the WhiteHouse, better to keep it focused squarely on "the brown people," so we'll just say that it hit the pentagon anyway (which was undeniably hit by SOMETHING), and then we don't have to fess up to killing a few hundred of our own.
Theory 1a:
The renegade pilot had a change of heart. He would not be the first "warrior" who decided that he'd rather not be blown to bits. So, rather than fly into his selected target, and into the arms of his seventy virgins, he took it out to sea. Intercepted by a scrambled f-16, and boom.
Theory 1b:
The renegade pilot was really as clueless as his instructor made him out to be. He could barely control the plane, and wound up taking it off the coast, rather than over a hard target. Still shot down, but questions would be raised...if we were so quick to nab this one, why not over NY? Might "look bad" that we scrambled to rescue the white house, but not the people of NY. Could be a publicity fiasco. Better just say it hit the Pentagon and be done with it.
I'm not saying any of these are right. But all of them would explain the relative LACK of plane-ness on the lawn.
Do you really think that the admin staged these attacks to provoke public opinion so that a war with Iraq would be possible?
Nope. That would be giving this administration far more credit than it is due.
And do you think it was all a scheme by Texas oilmen? And what connection do you make between this and JFK's death?
LOL!
I don't often think on such things.-=Vel=-
Comment