The Titanic sinking conspiracy theory

[HillBill]

If you look at the place it hits the bulding, in comparison the to the position of the object entering from the right you can quite clearly see that the object is travelling at right angles to the camera. Its coming straight at the pentagon. So i dont think its a wing tip. If it was then the object would have hit the camera prior to the pentagon.

Lord knows - it is security camera footage after all

If the plane came in at an oblique angle as claimed then what you can see could just as easily be wing tip.

 

[wingstoo]

Carreg Goch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8w1rzlRaT0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFLfuAYGE-sSadly

everyone on board was killed on impact, the plane is several miles from any road and no one was there to fight the fire, yet there are huge amounts of debris still there to this day, even plywood and canvas has survived 60 years of severe wet weather.

I don't doubt that anything I have seen about 11th September 2001 is anything but what actually happened...Just that we haven't been exposed to everything yet.

 

[Biker]

To ged. I fully admit I'm no rocket scientist I'm just commenting and presenting key points that were raised in that documentary I linked to on a previous page of this rapidly growing thread. Watch it and I'm sure it'll make sense.

Oddly enough I was 7 when Armstrong did his small step and can remember being at my grandparents house to see it on their TV. I remember how excited my parents were to be living in an age when science fiction became science fact.

I don't feel as though I've been had, what I do feel is that I have been shown an alternate way of looking at something so common placed in history and then having a freedom to judge for myself what these debunkers have to say about it. So have a look rather than having it 2nd hand from my inept typing and memory.

Trust me ged, you'd enjoy the documentary more than most and it's not in the least bit belittling, unlike a lot of documentary seem to be nowadays. "This is a Giraffe, can you say Giraffe? Giraffes have loooong necks. Giraffes cannot fly. Oooh see the Giraffe run! Aren't they funny."

 

[Huon]

If you look at the place it hits the bulding, in comparison the to the position of the object entering from the right you can quite clearly see that the object is travelling at right angles to the camera. Its coming straight at the pentagon. So i dont think its a wing tip. If it was then the object would have hit the camera prior to the pentagon.

I'm fairly sure we watched the same video. I doubt that you can tell what angle the plane came in at from what it shows. Regarding hitting the camera, oblique doesn't mean parallel. I see no reason why the plane couldn't have hit the building before the camera.

Of course all of this shows another problem with this type of discussion. People tend to interpret evidence in the way most favourable to their argument. In this case you and me both

 

[demographic]

Top work on the thread starters part, managed to flush out all the tinfoil hat wearers in one go.

You know the times when you mention to someone at work that fuel is getting expensive and they counter by talking about stocking up on ammo and Iraq being able to launch long range weapons in 40 minutes? You know, the point when you begin to back away slowly whilst vowing never to get in a late night conversation with that mentalist again?

That's this thread.

 

[Biker]

Heres the video of whatever hit the pentagon hitting the pentagon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14395484

Funny how it doesnt show a plane isn't it?

Did anyone see a plane? I didn't see a plane and there's enough vids on youtube of planes coming down like falling leaves to compare this footage against. Didn't see any big wreackge parts bouncing up in the air or tail sections snapping off and tumbling about

And another thing, this is a security video taking simple (boring) images of what's going on outside on the path, yet the CIA in their wisdom decide that 4 seconds is all they they're going to release. So we get blink and you'd miss it evidence, and if you don't blink you still miss it.

 

[Biker]

Top work on the thread starters part, managed to flush out all the tinfoil hat wearers in one go.

You know the times when you mention to someone at work that fuel is getting expensive and they counter by talking about stocking up on ammo and Iraq being able to launch long range weapons in 40 minutes? You know, the point when you begin to back away slowly whilst vowing never to get in a late night conversation with that mentalist again?

That's this thread.

That made me laugh out loud mate, thanks. So glad I'm not considered a foil hat wearer... wait a sec'

 

[HillBill]

Aye.

I was only referring to your suggestion of a wing tip in the way that if the wingtip was the first thing into the camera like that, then it has to be moving towards or away from the camera at an angle. That angle would carry the plane either into the camera( maybe not directly but close to) or away from the point it impacted the building.

I'm fairly sure we watched the same video. I doubt that you can tell what angle the plane came in at from what it shows. Regarding hitting the camera, oblique doesn't mean parallel. I see no reason why the plane couldn't have hit the building before the camera.

Of course all of this shows another problem with this type of discussion. People tend to interpret evidence in the way most favourable to their argument. In this case you and me both

 

[santaman2000]

Ooops, bad use of words there...Would the quantity of metal that is supposed to have been vaporised all have disappeared or would there still be pools of metal left...

That's a better question. And the honest answer is, "It depends." It's possible under the right conditions for wither to happen. That's my point; the lack of aluminum residue isn't proof, it's evidence that the crash happened in a certain set of circumstances that would have consumed (or scattered) it beyond recovery or recognition.

 

[nuggets]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cvjBViV7g


compare the damage to the pentagon ???


aint it time to invade iran yet ???

 

[HillBill]

And this is supposed to be the security system of one of the most highly guarded and secure buildings in the world, from the country who places intelligence gathering above most other things.

Did anyone see a plane? I didn't see a plane and there's enough vids on youtube of planes coming down like falling leaves to compare this footage against. Didn't see any big wreackge parts bouncing up in the air or tail sections snapping off and tumbling about

And another thing, this is a security video taking simple (boring) images of what's going on outside on the path, yet the CIA in their wisdom decide that 4 seconds is all they they're going to release. So we get blink and you'd miss it evidence, and if you don't blink you still miss it.

 

[santaman2000]

And this is supposed to be the security system of one of the most highly guarded and secure buildings in the world, from the country who places intelligence gathering above most other things.

LOL. Is this the basis of your argument that the self-same government and agency is capable of such a massive hoax?

 

[HillBill]

The government isn't any part of my argument. I dont think hoax is the correct term either.

But you would expect them to have better video footage of it from the pentagon of all places.

Im in no way suggesting what did happen on 9/11, nor am i suggesting what hit the pentagon. I'm just not convinced it was a plane that hit it

LOL. Is this the basis of your argument that the self-same government and agency is capable of such a massive hoax?

 

[Urban X]

@santaman2000 Oh i believe they're capable of just about anything unfortunately.

@HillBill Yeah but they had to find a camera that didn't show what actually happened, I'd love to see the real footage from the other cams.


Si

 

[santaman2000]

@santaman2000 Oh i believe they're capable of just about anything unfortunately.

@HillBill Yeah but they had to find a camera that didn't show what actually happened, I'd love to see the real footage from the other cams.


Si

Take the context of my question. I don't mean, "morally capable." I was asking if they are so inept at everything else, why would they have the technical/professional competence to pull off such a hoax?

 

[HillBill]

Agreed ...

, I'd love to see the real footage from the other cams.
Si

 

[HillBill]

Take the context of my question. I don't mean, "morally capable." I was asking if they are so inept at everything else, why would they have the technical/professional competence to pull off such a hoax?

Hoax...no

Cover up......?

 

[wingstoo]

 

[Huon]

Hoax...no

Cover up......?

but they are not any part of your argument are they?

 

[Urban X]

Take the context of my question. I don't mean, "morally capable." I was asking if they are so inept at everything else, why would they have the technical/professional competence to pull off such a hoax?

Quite right, morals and the US government inc. all it's various 'special' departments/agencies cannot possibly go in the same sentence, just like our own.

Inept is one thing I'd never call them, they have the power, the technical capabilities, and the spin doctors to pull off whatever they want, they've had the wool over peoples eyes for decades, smoke and mirrors, greatest illusionists in the world, and along with our lot dangling on a nice tight leash yes sir no sir to whatever they say, they get away with it too, spitting image springs to mind, lmao great show. Why the UK isn't already on the map as the 51st State I'll never know.

(Have I ever mentioned I really, really, hate politicians, ALL of them?)


Si