Loose change conspiracy

[Flame-returns]

And one more thing: Those idiot theorists who think the four airliners were "empty" radio-controlled drones conveniently forget the fact that the thousands of family members, loved ones, co-workers and friends of the passengers must all be in on the giant Bush-administration conspiracy! What about all those folks, you conspiracy theorists? Are they all in on it, too? How does that fit the theory?

And if the planes were empty, how do you explain the missing passengers who all went to the airport and got on the planes? Did the planes land somewhere (in a matter of minutes, of course), the passengers were herded off, and did CIA agents then execute them all???

And American Flight 77 that went into the pentagon: If it wasn't that plane, but was a Tomahawk missile or something, then what the hell happened to Flight 77??? Was it hijacked by CIA agents, flown to Area 51, demolished, and all the passengers were executed? Is that what really happened to all those people???

You don’t seem to understand this, do you?

What happened is that all the planes were boarded by CIA agents dressed up as terrorists (you know, turbans, beards, carrying a well thumbed Qur'an in one hand and a scimitar dripping in the blood of a sacrificial animal in the other.)

The CIA agents hijacked the planes and stabbed passengers trying to resist, only after those passengers had called relatives on their mobiles to inform them that the aircraft were indeed being hijacked (they didn’t know about the CIA agents!)

Then the CIA agents landed the planes in area 51 (so the planes would never be found again, plus the junior CIA agents could diguise them as UFOs and fly them around town annoying the locals) and hid them in hangars. This left the CIA free to launch the remote-controlled replacement aircraft and fly them into the WTC/Pentagon.

Idiot

 

[Zardoz]

You don’t seem to understand this, do you?

...CIA agents... terrorists...turbans, beards...Qur'an...scimitar...blood...animal...stabbed passengers...Area 51...UFOs...remote-controlled replacement aircraft...WTC/Pentagon.

Idiot

Oh, okay.

Thanks for straightening me out!

 

[Tornado]

Also, they showed what happens when a car or truck drives too close to the jets (within 70 feet) and it blowed the car right over and completely off the runway. If it really was low enough to knock over lightpoles, then the cars that it flew right over would have been blown completely off the road, considering each turbine makes over 100,000lbs of thrust.

No, they wouldn't have. If the jet was at a downward angle, than all of the 400,000 lbs of thrust would have been angled upwards, thus avoiding the cars entirely.
And it doesn't take much to collapse a lightpole longitudally. We've had ice storms around here were enough ice got on the poles to make them not only fall over, but have the bases downright collapse. Take a soda can and flatten it against your head. They collapse like that.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

In the video it talks about Osama Bin Laden wearing a golden ring...and that Islam forbids that...does that mean anything?

He's also left-handed and is shown writing with his right hand, yet is consistent with normal writing fashion (showing the image wasn't flipped). Plus, it just doesn't look like him, so I think it's fairly obvious he was just the scapegoat for a horrible tragedy. Note that I'm not defending him, I'm just saying they needed someone to point the finger at and start a war for, but not actually capture. *ahem*

a jet flying at speed over a motorway will not knock cars over with its exhaust, as the velocity of the exhaust minus the velocity of the aircraft (which it imparts on the exhaust as it is moving in the opposite direction, and this plane was supposed to be moving fast) isn't enough to cause the same effects that a static jet turbine does.

I realize that now. Plus the simple law of "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" starts to kick in and everything falls apart. I would still expect some disturbance had it been a large airliner, though.

What I still dont understand is this, why bother?

I could understand the FBI faking Osama's confession but why would they blow up a major part of the US economic infastructure?

Why destroy the Pentagon?

Other than crippiling the US economy what effects could these attacks have, what could they gain?

I don't understand that either, but I just don't see why there's so much "evidence" that doesn't add up. Especially the wheel nut and turbine housing thing.

I don't take many of the videos for what they claim to be (the supposed floors being detonated before imploding), as the video resolution is so poor. Plus, eyewitness testimony is often only 10% accurate and shouldn't really be payed attention to, which is why I never cite witnesses.

 

[Famine]

He's also left-handed

That I doubt.

 

[Dave A]

I'm going to do some checking on the steel theory and post back tomorrow, that interests me. I'm not really into all these conspiracies, not outside of the X Files anyway, but I did construction and design at college and that particualr theory has caught my interest theres a lot more variables to take into account that the melting point and the temperature fule burns at, there was a HUGE impace on the structure which could have caused buckles much further down. As I said though, I'll do some checking and come up with what I think tomorrow. As for the missile/plane in the pentagon, that has been de-bunked many times. I got Famine to de-bunk it for me a while back because I just thought it looked like too small a hole at the time .

 

[Plague.Ghost]

It's not the small-hole theory, mine is that it just simply wasn't a 757 or a 747. It was a much smaller aircraft, perhaps military— as the video shows.

 

[Lamboracer]

So your saying that if i get a normal 5 gallon jar and put my loose change in it for a year it will amount to 1000 dollars. Wow thats great.

 

[Zardoz]

It's not the small-hole theory, mine is that it just simply wasn't a 757 or a 747. It was a much smaller aircraft, perhaps military— as the video shows.

So all these eyewitnesses who saw an airliner are wrong, and that BS video is "the truth"?

So many eyewitness accounts you'll get tired of reading them...

http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_explicit.htm

And there's this: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

This conspiracy BS is such a joke...

 

[Plague.Ghost]

And there's the other "eye witness" accounts, saying it looked and sounded like a small jet, and CCTV camera showing an abnormally small white streak crashing into the building.

 

[Zardoz]

And there's the other "eye witness" accounts, saying it looked and sounded like a small jet, and CCTV camera showing an abnormally small white streak crashing into the building.

The CCTV footage shows a very large aircraft that is in perfect proportion to the 71-foot-tall Pentagon building. If you look closely you can even see the engine on the left wing, looking just like a 757 engine should.

I edited and added more. Read what the actual witnesses saw. Lots of them even ID the American Airlines paint job.

 

[Kylehnat]

Both planes looked like commercial jetliners to me. I know; my eyes have been tampered with by the government to make me THINK that.

 

[Zardoz]

This is a comparison between the Pentagon damage and the damage a 747 did to an apartment building in Amsterdam in 1992. Its so identical its eerie:

http://www.vialls.com/pentagon/pentagon.html

The late Joe Vialls was an old anti-semitic Israeli-hater from way back, so he goes on about nerve gas constituent chemicals on the El Al 747, but he makes the point about how similar the damage to the two buildings is.

Another picture. Look how narrow the hole is that the giant 747 made in the apartment building, which is a flimsy structure compared to the fortress-like Pentagon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/263813.stm

Case closed, folks. A hijacked 757, piloted by suicide-mission jihadists, hit the Pentagon.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Those holes are still quite large.

But still, that doesn't explain why the turbine housing, wheels, and arm struts/supports for the wheels don't match that of a Boeing 747 or 757.

 

[niky]

Holes still quite large... yes... and the Pentagon is ten times as stiff as those apartment buildings. Looking at that and at all the concrete used in the Pentagon, I'd expect the Pentagon hole to be much smaller than it was.

I've looked over the photos, and the damage is massive.

As for the small engine, it is more than likely the Auxilliary Power Unit located in the tail of the aircraft. Think about it... how likely is it to find a whole engine from the wing of an aircraft in one piece after a big crash? In most crashes with this much velocity, the plane merely disintegrates. Air Crash investigators then have to piece the engines together from thousands of tiny pieces of debris, not identifiably large ones. That the pieces were mostly whole indicates that it was from the rear of the plane and relatively shielded from impact.

If the plane were a light plane, that engine would have been on the wing or on a housing above the fuselage, and would have disintegrated upon impact with the wall. If it were from an armed missile, I'd expect very little of it to survive.

As for wheels and struts... I think Duke answered all that perfectly in his first post.

The real ****er about this conspiracy theory is its proponents are armchair investigators who try to analyze the evidence from internet sources and secondhand accounts. This job is best left to the professionals... and even they can be misled by the evidence.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Did you watch the video?

The pieces left over is the only part of the story that's bothering me (besides the obvious Osama impersonator), and they already tried the auxiliary power unit-- the rivet holes aren't the same. The Boeing's are circular rivets with large triangular raised edges on them. The turbine housing rivets found in the pentagon did not have those. Plus, the wheel sizes are just inconsisten- the ratio of the wheel radius to wheel width is not consisten with that of a large aircraft, same with the landing gear pieces. Obviously it was a plane, I just don't think it was a large commercial passenger jet.

As for the pentagon destruction, howcome that section of it was apparently the only reinforced and renovated portion of the building?

Also, in before photos. there appears to be a large white line or patch that matches almost the exact trjectory of the aircraft. This could be explained though, as a marker for the terrorists to look for or something that was made by a grass killing chemical, or something tot hat effect. It would make sense that they did that, and the Pentagon groundskeepers probably wouldn't give too big a hoot for some dead or whiteish grass.

 

[Fairlady240zg]

Seriously, you guys are retarded...

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Seriously, watch the video or don't talk.

 

[Fairlady240zg]

Again....you guys are are retarded.

 

[MugenVTEC]

Again....you guys are are retarded.

I would suggest you to keep these comments to yourself so you dont pollute other peoples thread and disrespect them.

 

[niky]

I would suggest you to keep these comments to yourself so you dont pollute other peoples thread and disrespect them.

👍 Word. This forum is for true blue, argue-till-you're-blue-in-the-face opinionators.

 

[Duke]

Again....you guys are are retarded.

Instead of just saying this, prove that they're retarded, eh?

That takes a little more work, though.

 

[James2097]

I am retarded, I'm totally pissed up to my eyeballs! And on a tuesday night!

I think its fun to try and work out crazy American conspiracies.. they really are tricky.

We haven't even worked out JFK's assasination and the US government gives us a NEW mystery? You'd think they could wait till we worked out the last one. How inconsiderate.

 

[Zardoz]

...I think its fun to try and work out crazy American conspiracies.. they really are tricky...

...especially when they're a load of horse manure.

 

[James2097]

Horse manure is really quite good quality and more useful than say, bull manure. Which has a nice tradition of being erm... factually incorrect.

 

[Zardoz]

Manure's manure, no matter which animal it comes out of...

 

[Fairlady240zg]

Hahahaha..

You guys are gonna give yourselves heart attacks stressin over this stuff. No one here is going to be like "Well **** bill, I never looked at it that way. ...Maybe I should!" No ones going to change their minds, and your not going to prove anything about the conspiracy.
But thats understood I hope and I guess if thats how you get your kicks, its all good.
Ill stop hating.

 

[Zardoz]

Hahahaha..

You guys are gonna give yourselves heart attacks stressin' over this stuff. No one here is going to be like "Well **** bill, I never looked at it that way. ...Maybe I should!" No one's going to change their minds...

This is nothing compared to the creation/evolution thread...

 

[FoolKiller]

Popular Mechanics March, 2005 cover story.

9/11: Debunking The Myths

They talked to experts and witnesses, including a man at the Pentagon who says he clearly saw body parts. They also have pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon with the proper paint scheme on them.

They also completely explain the science behind the collapse of the towers and how it happened.

Please let this nuttiness die.


BTW, as for the Osama wearing a gold ring in the video thing: How can you tell. If it is the same video I have seen it is a grainy image and I couldn't tell anything.

I am also interested in who has seen Osama face to face that is saying it doesn't look like him in a grainy video? Everyone I hear that says that have only seen him in other videos. Combine that with rumors of his health issues and you could have someone who looks different from one video to the next.

Osama being left-handed, according to? And how do you know he isn't ambidextrous and using his right hand because his left is injured or a million other possibilities?

For every question you can ask I can ask more.

In the end I will take the reputation of Popular Mechanics over a few blogger conspiracy theorists who misquote what few experts they are able to quote. According to the above PM article all wreckage matches with the plane believed to have hit the Pentagon.



Of course, I have one final question: If 9/11 was faked in order to get a war with Iraq why not creatre fake evidence linking Iraq and Saddam, not Osama? There is nothing of value in Afghanistan and Osama has no more rights to his family's oil properties. It seems to me that if we were to fake all this so we coudl go to war with Iraq we would frame Iraq.

Maybe I am just too dumb to see the genius behind killing thousands of Americans and framing a man seperate from the one we want to justify a war with.

 

[Zardoz]

Popular Mechanics March, 2005 cover story.

9/11: Debunking The Myths

Great link, FK. Thanks for posting it.

I'm so tired of this conspiracy horsecrap.