Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I hear the really crazy conspiracy theories like 911, faked moon landings, etc., I have to wonder what the real motivation is behind the folks that think them up?
Oh, that's easy. Conspiracy theorists feel they hold knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to, and that makes them smarter. Hard to abandon a point of view that makes you feel more informed, even if it's based on shaky suppositions.
They seem to know too much about the technical side of things. People could pretend, but eventually real pilots are going to show up.
On the other hand, how do you know eyewitnesses weren't just looking for their 15 minutes of fame?
Because most of them are unknown and didn't get 15 minutes of fame. It is certainly possible that someone claimed to see the plane hit the Pentagon to get attention, but all those people said it to get attention? Most normal people are going to be so shocked at witnessing such an event that it wouldn't occur to them to think, "Hey, I'm gonna make a better story out of this."
As for the pilots, maybe, but you make assumptions about real pilots that may not be accurate. There was also a group called something like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth which got attention (and donations) trying to persuade people that the WTC was a controlled demolition, of which very few members were actuslly architects and engineers and none of which were at the World Trade Center on 9/11, or the pile afterward, or at Fresh Kills. The real engineers who were there that day and who worked on the pile and at Fresh Kills and who read and commented on the collapse analysis don't go on their site. They dismiss them.
I don't know enough about the Pentagon to get technical, but it seems to me from accounts of survivors and eyewitnesses that what they said happened, did happen.
The govt's account of what happened defy physics, logic and common sense.
Independent aviation experts have come out and stated that the maneuvers that the govt claims this plane made in order to strike the pentagon in the manner in which the govt claims it did are impossible!
Scary is the fact that a 757 passenger plane flew into our nations capital and into one of the most secure building in the world that is full of surveillance cameras, yet there is no footage of a GIGANTIC PLANE flying into the city and into that building.
Do you know for a fact that the Pentagon had all these surveillance cameras around its exterior or is that an assumption on your part?
100+ interviewees describing a plane. Nobody describing a missile.
Ever been on the ground during a high-speed, low flyover? If your camera isn't in your hands, you'll miss the shot. And this was in the days before smartphones became ubiquitous. Even security cameras were way more expensive and so considerably more rare.
I don't doubt the witnesses, but like you said "if the camera isn't in your hands, you'll miss the shot." If the airplane was flying too fast to get a good look at it, how can we know for sure what the witnesses saw? If we had video footage we could replay it in slow motion for a better look. And what about many witnesses who have commented on the lack of airplane debris after the plane hit? Others have suggested the aircraft flew over the Pentagon at low altitude, at the moment the explosion took place to make it appear as if it struck the Pentagon, but didn't actually hit it.
It's a specious argument - "Why isn't there this one piece of evidence that would have settled the issue for me?" Well, people were rather busy and nobody thought of proving what they did for posterity. I've had lunar landing deniers state the same essential argument - why didn't anyone take this specific photo or provide that data set or carry out this here experiment? Because they had better things to do.
Conspiracy theories about faked moon landing and UFOs are nonsense IMO, but that doesn't mean mean all conspiracies are untrue. All you have to do is look at Operation Northwoods to realize what our government is capable of. That Northwoods was an actual top secret plan by the Department of Defense and CIA to carry out multiple terrorist attacks on its own citizens in 1962 - massive attacks on the scale of 9/11 - is not in dispute.
I don't doubt the witnesses, but like you said "if the camera isn't in your hands, you'll miss the shot." If the airplane was flying too fast to get a good look at it, how can we know for sure what the witnesses saw? If we had video footage we could replay it in slow motion for a better look. And what about many witnesses who have commented on the lack of airplane debris after the plane hit? Others have suggested the aircraft flew over the Pentagon at low altitude, at the moment the explosion took place to make it appear as if it struck the Pentagon, but didn't actually hit it.
Conspiracy theories about faked moon landing and UFOs are nonsense IMO, but that doesn't mean mean all conspiracies are untrue. All you have to do is look at Operation Northwoods to realize what our government is capable of. That Northwoods was an actual top secret plan by the Department of Defense and CIA to carry out multiple terrorist attacks on its own citizens in 1962 - massive attacks on the scale of 9/11 - is not in dispute.
While I don't dispute that power corrupts and that any government must be distrusted and watched by default, remember that when you refer to "our government" in 1962, you are not referring to the same people who were "our government" in 2001. Yeah, they could've been WORSE, but when you make individual people faceless and start to see them as part of an inhuman machine of sorts, it's easy to leap to conclusions that may not be accurate.
Building 7 is the biggest smoking gun of all.
The way it came down was a classic controlled demolition, and it was not hit by any aircraft.
The way the perps likely planned it, Building 7 was supposed to come down at the same time as the Twin Towers. That way the collapse of 7 would be masked by the massive dust clouds of smoke created by the North and South towers coming down. But there was a technical problem and Building 7 did not come down according to plan. So they had to implode it hours after the destruction of the main towers. But by that time the dust clouds were gone and there was nothing to hide it. Obviously they did not intend for the world to see the actual collapse of Building 7.
But why do it at all then? To what end? What would be gained from that when the devastation was already mind blowing?
My reputation just hit 911. How appropriate for this thread.
Sorry for the interruption. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
