kneehighs Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 deleted Feminine Style . Masculine Soul. Skin In The Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I wasn't able to view the video, however this site http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm debunks the video and questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 My comment is that a lot of "conspiracy theory" is posted on the internet and 99% of the time it's pointless linking to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneehighs Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 deleted Feminine Style . Masculine Soul. Skin In The Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscotty727 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 JFK, Princess Di, 9-11, etc. Conspiracy theories are what parinoid people do when they have nothing better to do. I am not a major fan of the current administration, but to suggest they would blow up the Pentagon to gain some percentage points on approval ratings is plain stupid. IF anything captured the pictures (and I have a hard time believing that all those cameras just happened to be pointed at the Pentagon RIGHT at that moment), the reason they are probably not being released because of sensitvity to the families. How many times did we see the planes hit the twin towers and wish they would just stop showing them over and over and over? Imagine how family members feel about it. I agree with Firefox, it isn't worth the time to even post the link. Scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneehighs Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 I hope I didn't offend anyone here. At another forum I visit, a link to this site was given and I thought I'd like to see what my friends here think. Feminine Style . Masculine Soul. Skin In The Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 No offense taken, knee highs. You asked what people thought of the link and one or two of us gave an opinion. Maybe some people will think it was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneehighs Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 Thanks Firefox. When I realized that there may be some people on this forum with friends or family that were involved, I though it prudent to self-delete the post though. Feminine Style . Masculine Soul. Skin In The Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 No need to delete the link. I thought it was hogwash. That is only one opinion. Others may have a different opinion, and want to debate it. Bring it on, I say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genebujold Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Considering the fact that a good friend of mine from high school died during the Pentagon terrorist attack, and that half the people I know in the military knew someone who worked at the Pentagon at the time of the attack, this claim is not only flat wrong, it's downright insulting. Thierry Meyssan and his book "The Frightening Fraud" are the frauds, here. Both deserve extreme ridicule! Sheesh! What next? US-captured UFO's camoflagued as jetliners took out the WTC towers? Give me a break! Kudos to the webmaster for debunking this ridiculous speculation: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm I'll add my own two cents: 1. The reason there was little debris has to do with the fact that an airplace is designed to fly through a thin medium known as "air," not a thick medium made of rock, steel, and kevlar. 2. Other aircraft accidents where airliner hit nothing but normal dirt, but at high rates of speed (350 to 700 mph) reduced those aircraft to very small pieces, most no more than a foot or so across. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if dirt can do that to an airliner, a building made of two-foot thick stone backed by steel and kevlar reinforcements would probably shred it quicker than thowing a tomato into the blades of a lawnmower (don't try this at home, kids!). One more observation: Examine your car crash history, when cars have engaged in head-on collisions with large trucks at relative speeds of just 140 mph, and examine the result - the car is usually utterly destroyed. Now factor in the fact that a car is built to take serious impacts and survive - an airliner is not. The difference is as much as a factor of three. Also factor in the fact that the energy involved is proportional to the square of the velocity, so that a 350 mph crash involves more than six times the destructive energy as does a 140 mph crash with a semi (car doing 70, semi doing 70). Is it any wonder that the airplane was destroyed as much as eighteen times more so than a car is when doing a head-on with a semi? Here's another analogy. If anyone has seen those tree-chippers, those towed tree-shredding machines into which workmen feed a tree, only to have the machine produce a lot of noise and a ton of woodchips on the other side, they'll have a better understanding of the relative energies involved. Thierry Meyssan is an idiot - and that's not a term I throw at people but once in a blue moon, and only when utterly, and completely well-deserved. Firefox, kneehighs - I agree. While the subject matter is touchy (got me hot!) it needs to be out there just so people can debunk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sendra45 Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Hi, for anybody in to these sorts of things, catch up with me at the bristol heelmeet. these theorys are so interesting. The angels have the phonebox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts