DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> 9/11 pentagon conspiracy theory?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/26/2005 07:54:57 PM · #1
I'm just the messenger so don't shoot me! 9/11 pentagon theory


02/26/2005 08:00:01 PM · #2
As a reminder, any politically-themed threads should go in the "Rant" folder.

-Terry
 02/26/2005 08:02:31 PM · #3
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
As a reminder, any politically-themed threads should go in the "Rant" folder.
-Terry


Thanks for moving it Terry
*wanders off making a mental note*
 02/26/2005 08:07:29 PM · #4
im not even gonna look at that link cuz i saw a movie like that before. The people that make those i dont think go outside enough. hours under one dimly lit light bulb in their basement starts to bend their mind and while can foster a good imagination can often result in such fantastical fanatical theories. My uncle, with a phd from northwestern, is a good example. crazy crazy man
 02/26/2005 08:07:36 PM · #5
hmmmmmm
 02/26/2005 09:18:48 PM · #6
If indeed it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane, and all the people on it, that was supposed to have hit the building? I knew someone on that plane and I can tell you for sure, she is no longer with us.
 02/26/2005 09:31:56 PM · #7
This follows all the other conspiracy theories... Most are incomplete.

Sure, they suggest it wasn't a plane but a missle.. But for what? I don't think the pentagon attack would have made a difference either way.
I'm assuming this is insinuating that they did this to further motivate the American people to agree with their demands, but we would have done that without that.. Those building alone were enough to piss off every single american.

Judith, what other info do you have? I am curious. (that is not sarcasm or meant to be mean). I'm sorry to hear about your friend. :(
 02/26/2005 09:33:21 PM · #8
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If indeed it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane, and all the people on it, that was supposed to have hit the building? I knew someone on that plane and I can tell you for sure, she is no longer with us.


I am sorry for you and your loved ones that you must endure the ramblings of such people.

I hope this thread will be locked or moved very soon.

Deb

Message edited by author 2005-02-26 21:35:06.
 02/26/2005 09:57:56 PM · #9
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If indeed it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane, and all the people on it, that was supposed to have hit the building? I knew someone on that plane and I can tell you for sure, she is no longer with us.


For sure...the plane and all the people had to go some where.....but of coarse these types of conspiracy freaks never explain where all the people went....did they just vanish? Of coarse not.

Sorry for your loss.
 02/26/2005 10:08:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If indeed it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane, and all the people on it, that was supposed to have hit the building? I knew someone on that plane and I can tell you for sure, she is no longer with us.


For sure...the plane and all the people had to go some where.....but of coarse these types of conspiracy freaks never explain where all the people went....did they just vanish? Of coarse not.

Sorry for your loss.


I guess we can call it the Bermuda Pentagon in DC.
 02/26/2005 10:09:14 PM · #11
I don't know for sure what hit the pentagon...but whatever that is flying into it on that one video is definately not a 757. It's also suspicious that the FBI won't release the other videos of it from the gas station and the sheraton...I mean what do they have to hide?

I could go on and on with conspiracy theories, and usually I'm a bit skeptic as to what *could* have happened, but this one, I believe, at least somewhat anyway.
 02/26/2005 10:16:56 PM · #12
PM debunking the PST
 02/26/2005 10:20:50 PM · #13
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to cut off discussion on this topic or have the thread locked. I was posing a serious question because the video leaves a lot of unanswered questions if we assume for a moment that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, the most obvious being what happened to the plane and all the people who were supposed to have died when it hit the building? Those people are gone, they did die, but if not in the circumstances we've come to believe, then how? The only information I have from my friend's husband is that there were no remains to return to him, but that can be easily explained.
 02/26/2005 10:27:03 PM · #14
Nicely done animation is all I can say.

Got to be one of the stupidest conspiracy theories though I've seen in a long while. Usual bullshit that someone has made up that is then reportorted as "fact" and geee, I read it on the interweb, it must be true *laugh*

Also very insulting to the families of anyone lost in the tragedy.
 02/27/2005 01:19:08 AM · #15
Of all that horrible stuff that happened on 9/11, the Pentagon business has always bothered me the most. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist", I'm a level-headed guy, but where the HELL is the airplane? My dad's 10x as level-headed as me, and a Republican to boot, but he's a retired aeronautical engineer who actually DESIGNED airliners like this, and he's as perturbed as I am. There's NO evidence anywhere that this was a commercial jetliner that impacted the Pentagon, that I have seen.

It's a mystery to me.

Robt.
 02/27/2005 03:52:14 PM · #16
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
PM debunking the PST

Thank you...I hate conspiracy theories

In the film it stated that buildings don̢۪t eat planes...that is absolutely correct, except that the pentagon was a goddamned FORT!

02/27/2005 07:08:50 PM · #17
You sound a bit disapointed there was not more distruction.
And such language for a young feller too. Maybe you will grow out of it when you dry out some.
 02/27/2005 07:35:27 PM · #18
Those who "hate" or dismiss ALL the theories are just fooling themselves. Of course not all theories are correct, but those who have faith in any government are delusional. Remember that absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I'm not sure if it has been covered in any forums, but if anyone who "honestly" looks at the evidence (especially photographers)then they would have to admit that the Apollo missions never made it to the moon.

Most people, especially the nay-sayers, tend to do their thinking with emotion instead of logic. Like the moon shot the US goverment had lots of motive, opportunity, and the technical know-how (to stage it not to go to the moon) so with no accountability why wouldn't they?

I'm not making any assumptions about 911, but who has benefited the most from the situation? It was obviously the Bush administration. He went from the lamest duck president with the lowest approval rating to a relection.

I know I'm going to get alot of angry responses, but you really need to ask yourselves first...

Am I judging with my emotions and personal opinions or will I analize the sitution with logic.
 02/27/2005 07:40:22 PM · #19
Originally posted by David Ey:
You sound a bit disapointed there was not more distruction.
And such language for a young feller too. Maybe you will grow out of it when you dry out some.

nononono! Completely misunderstood. I believe that everyone has the right to voice their own opinion; however I felt that the film completely abused this right by twisting facts and fabricating truths.

That said, my post was referring to how the film made it seemed like a building was no match for a large airplane, that there should have been more remains of the plane than there were of the building. I was stating that this may be true of most buildings, but the film seemed to conveniently leave out the fact that the pentagon was built to last, it was a fort, designed to take hits from explosives.

I am appalled to see someone try to make money (that "donate" button in the corner bothered me) from such a tragedy, and worse, discredit the lives of all whom were lost that day.


02/27/2005 08:10:40 PM · #20
It is bogus.

//www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

More in-depth explanation:

//www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm

Popular Mechanics article on this as well:

//www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

02/27/2005 08:12:43 PM · #21
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Those who "hate" or dismiss ALL the theories are just fooling themselves. Of course not all theories are correct, but those who have faith in any government are delusional. Remember that absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I'm not sure if it has been covered in any forums, but if anyone who "honestly" looks at the evidence (especially photographers)then they would have to admit that the Apollo missions never made it to the moon.

Most people, especially the nay-sayers, tend to do their thinking with emotion instead of logic. Like the moon shot the US goverment had lots of motive, opportunity, and the technical know-how (to stage it not to go to the moon) so with no accountability why wouldn't they?

I'm not making any assumptions about 911, but who has benefited the most from the situation? It was obviously the Bush administration. He went from the lamest duck president with the lowest approval rating to a relection.

I know I'm going to get alot of angry responses, but you really need to ask yourselves first...

Am I judging with my emotions and personal opinions or will I analize the sitution with logic.


Your comments don't deserve comment. I'm sure Bush did not look at the WTC attack and think let's kill more people so I can get re-elected. How pathetic to even suggest that.
 02/27/2005 08:14:31 PM · #22
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

I'm not sure if it has been covered in any forums, but if anyone who "honestly" looks at the evidence (especially photographers)then they would have to admit that the Apollo missions never made it to the moon.


I disagree with you entirely there.

Or more correctly object to when people use sweeping generalisations to justify a stance.

No, it is only YOUR OPINION that people if they were being "honest" would "have top admit". I have looked honestly and I do not have to admit that at all, the moon landings one for me is a case of people looking for shadows that do not exist. Maybe there are parts that are a conspiracy, but not the whole "mankind never made it to the moon" in MY OPINION.

Yup, there are doubtless lots of real conspiracies around, huge ones .... but I prefer to look and judge for myself, rather than jump at any that are proposed.
 02/27/2005 08:14:54 PM · #23
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Those who "hate" or dismiss ALL the theories are just fooling themselves. Of course not all theories are correct, but those who have faith in any government are delusional. Remember that absolute power corrupts absolutly.

I'm not sure if it has been covered in any forums, but if anyone who "honestly" looks at the evidence (especially photographers)then they would have to admit that the Apollo missions never made it to the moon.

Most people, especially the nay-sayers, tend to do their thinking with emotion instead of logic. Like the moon shot the US goverment had lots of motive, opportunity, and the technical know-how (to stage it not to go to the moon) so with no accountability why wouldn't they?

I'm not making any assumptions about 911, but who has benefited the most from the situation? It was obviously the Bush administration. He went from the lamest duck president with the lowest approval rating to a relection.

I know I'm going to get alot of angry responses, but you really need to ask yourselves first...

Am I judging with my emotions and personal opinions or will I analize the sitution with logic.


Indeed.

Plus, millions were made in the stock market on the 2 days before and several after it opened back up. Alot of people got rich because of 9/11. The owner of the twin towers made billions from insurance money from the towers too. He also just bought them a few weeks before 9/11.

Bush's uncle just made $450,000 off this war recently. And Halliburton has made over 9Billion. The same company that was overcharging for our troops meals and other things.

Never let it leave your mind that war is VERY profitable if your in with the right crowds.

Remember, Bush had 10 inauguration parties. That̢۪s TEN to the tune of over 40Million dollars. We paid for most of that, for a bad president to party with his millionaire and billionaire friends, while our troops STILL don̢۪t have the body armor and vehicle armor they need.

All that being said, that video holds no water compared to the documentation aspect of the many 9/11 questions.

Also remember this, our president̢۪s grandfather, Prescott Bush, had his bank taken away from him by Edger Hoover and the "trading with the enemy act" in WW2 for doing business with Germany and Hitler̢۪s army before and during WW2. I.E. much of Bush's family riches come from supporting one of the most famously evil men in history, Adolph Hitler.

History is full of surprises isn̢۪t it?
02/27/2005 09:03:32 PM · #24
I think another question to be asking is just how did a 757 penetrate US air space that should have been the most protected and defended of any air space in the world.

Speaking of trading with the enemy...
Halliburton is doing business with Iran.
Washington Post article
 02/28/2005 05:32:03 PM · #25
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think another question to be asking is just how did a 757 penetrate US air space that should have been the most protected and defended of any air space in the world.

Speaking of trading with the enemy...
Halliburton is doing business with Iran.
Washington Post article


Easy. We can't trust auto-detect/auto-destroy technology for fear that it could destroy a "legitimate" aircraft "by accident". On the other hand, we can't permit humans to make the decision to kill hundreds of innocent civilians based on "worst case" intelligence reports for fear that the naysayers ( e.g. liberals ) would scream long and loud that dissenting opinions were ignored if the worst-case turned out to NOT be the real case. Hence, inaction was the rule of the day.
By the time enough evidence was gathered to counter the nay-sayers, it was, unfortunately, too late to take pre-emptive action. When it was NOT too late to take pre-emptive action, as in the case of Iraq, we can all see what happened when the worst-case was not the case.
My guess is that the next attack will, likewise, be met with a paralysis of analysis for fear that it might be another Iraq-type situation, and no one wants to be on the firing line if they guess wrong. And as far as I'm concerned, that indecision will be a direct result of the left's response to past action based on best intelligence - to the left, best isn't good enough ( unless, of course, the democrats are in control ).

But, here's a good question, Olyuzi. What would YOU have done?

Message edited by author 2005-02-28 17:48:44.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 12:04:02 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 12:04:02 PM EDT.