OrIoN Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 hey, i found this movie http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.swf it makes me think.. do you guys believe this flash? Link to comment
Dgtadude Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 SH** this is AWESOME . they made a GREAT point .. Aircraft or missle? WOW . nice find dude . anyways to answer ur question.. they eighther made it in flash . or made a avi movie and switched it to flash .. but i think it was option #1 . since the quality looks ok .. Link to comment
Dgtadude Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 After some research .. check out what i found .. If it was a plane it would end up right here : Also . check out the "penta-lawn 2000" http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html The only lawn that does not get hurt buy a 10 ton 747 flying on it . and explodding next to it (notice on the pic on top ^ , how they covered the Lawn ..) something is VERy fishy bout this .. Link to comment
Combine Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 You guys are gullible idiots. First of all, the plane was incinerated. He was flying at 500+ miles per hour with a full tank of fuel! Second, he was aiming for the white house. So his "flying skills" for flying so low was that he missed and hit the pentagon. Chat between the terrorists and al qaeda show that they aimed for the white house. Why the hell would they attack the pentagon? THEY WANTED TO KILL BUSH!!! Third, cover ups are common. It would be a threat to national security to release all that information. Like giving the terrorists a freaking manual to release that info! All those videos would give information about plane attacks against buildings. Supporting the argument about the plane aiming for the white house, the pensyvania crash was the plane heading toward camp david, since they knew that bush would be in either place. The clean hole in the building? Planners and builders built the pentagon to sustain attacks against this building, like MISSILE attacks. So it obviously kept the explosion and fuel in one tier while the momentum of the wreckage, or parts of the building that was hit, cut a hole. Reviewing these facts, this is just propoganda and one big lie. EDIT: I forgot to mention the over 130 passengers aboard the plane calling on their cell phones to their relatives. Those people died, their bodies were recovered, and their relatives morned. Seems like this flash forgot an important part of the equation. EDIT 2: This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The plane didn't make skid marks across the lawn. Why? BECAUSE IT HIT THE BUILDING! It compares this crash to other crashes, showing debris trails. Well how many buildings do you see in the area where the plane crashed? I don't think I'll need to say that because a plane didn't skid across the ground means government conspiracy, it just means eye witness reports are not always valid. Link to comment
Dgtadude Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Oh ye .. a 747 going 2 feet on top of a lawn wont leave marks .. Not even heat marks from the turbins .. Edit : anyways .. nice topic to talk bout , everyone has their opnium .. so .. lets not start calling everyone a idiot .. cause .. everyone thinks differently .. Lets all be happy and say we're all right .. Link to comment
Combine Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Oh ye .. a 747 going 2 feet on top of a lawn wont leave marks .. Not even heat marks from the turbins .. I note your sarcasm. But there is no heat marks, thus proving the 747 was either much higher or that the plane was drifting. And even if the lawn defied the laws of physics by not being burned even under extreme heat, I don't think it has to do with government conspiracy, as the flash suggests. And why all the fuss about the lawn? I was more interested in his idea behind the FBI confiscating the videos of nearby locations, or the way the building was damaged. Link to comment
orappa Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 It seems a bit sensationalist, and too easy to believe... Link to comment
vass69 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 hum looks logical with the facts shown and i belive it cos a 747 cant disappear Link to comment
orappa Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 hum looks logical with the facts shown and i belive it cos a 747 cant disappear Logical with those facts, but do they show the whole picture? Also, a lot of them aren't "facts" but speculation. Link to comment
vass69 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 hum looks logical with the facts shown and i belive it cos a 747 cant disappear Logical with those facts, but do they show the whole picture? Also, a lot of them aren't "facts" but speculation. yep this point of view makes it look so, but it can be different Link to comment
OrIoN Posted September 5, 2004 Author Share Posted September 5, 2004 lol @ the penta lawn. i meant do you believe what was in the flash, not if it was a real flash or avi moive lol Link to comment
Kent747 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 it was a 757 not a 747... 757's are considerably smaller and don't have 4 engines Link to comment
Dgtadude Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Ye .. The fact that a boing disppears is a little .. .. shakky .. Link to comment
Combine Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 (edited) Ye .. The fact that a boing disppears is a little .. .. shakky .. Not really. They obviously confiscated it. Edit: There was also no wreckage recovered at the WTC. Just a black box. Edited September 6, 2004 by Guest Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now