Jiga
Active Member
Personally Im very sceptifcal of conspiracy theories in relation to 9/11, however this program last night was quite convincing and forwarded some decent evidence (Although I still find it very hard to believe it was a conspiracy). But in any case, I have also seen pictures that disprove what they showed in the program last night (like picutres on parts of a plane at the pentagon, yet conspiracy theorists dont think a plane did it 
)
I didnt see the entire program, but some of the main points were:
* The second plane at least that crashed into the world trade centre had an object underneath it uncharacteristic of a airliner, their was also a flash on the tower just before the plane impacted, what was that? In addition to this, numerous eye witnesses stated just after the attack that they believe it wasnt a airliner because from what they saw, it didnt have windows! The program also showed how numerous US army planes resemble air liners and so could have been used in the attack.
* In the pentagon attack, the hole made by the plane didnt fit the size of a airliner, it was just to small. In addition to this, it was mentioned how the pentagon has steal reinforcements on the outer edges, yet the 'plane' easily sliced through these and these reinforcements in future simulations were not taken into consideration. ALso, only one camera angle of the crash has ever been show, despite the pentagon have a camera every 10m on the outside and every inch being screened inside. Their was also a story that some petrol station that had a camera facing in the direction of the crash had its tape confiscated. Lastly, some 'specialists' said that with the amount of fuel on board due to the flights being trans continental the area arouund the pentagon under some law would have to be declared an environmental hazard or something, meaning all the immediately effect land would have to be extrtacted.
* The plane that crashed into the ground (flight 93) had previously been reported by some media source as being grounded due to suspision of a bomb being on board, yet a short time after the incident supposedly took place the plane had crashed into the ground?
* Numerous firefighters etc who saw the towers collapse were shocked at the uniform collapse of the towers, and even stated at the time that it was 'like' demolition charges. And this kinda sounds right to, if the main support thingys at the top of the crash gave way, wouldnt the top of the building fall away and then maybe the building collapse? Instead, it fell on itselfs perfectly and then entire strucutre, for such a LARGE building, didnt spread out to far as you would expect from a uncontrolled collapse.
* Lastly, they use the fact that previous governments during the cold war had consideried attacking their own people to raise disconentment towards Russia as evidence that they would do such a thing
Discuss?
)I didnt see the entire program, but some of the main points were:
* The second plane at least that crashed into the world trade centre had an object underneath it uncharacteristic of a airliner, their was also a flash on the tower just before the plane impacted, what was that? In addition to this, numerous eye witnesses stated just after the attack that they believe it wasnt a airliner because from what they saw, it didnt have windows! The program also showed how numerous US army planes resemble air liners and so could have been used in the attack.
* In the pentagon attack, the hole made by the plane didnt fit the size of a airliner, it was just to small. In addition to this, it was mentioned how the pentagon has steal reinforcements on the outer edges, yet the 'plane' easily sliced through these and these reinforcements in future simulations were not taken into consideration. ALso, only one camera angle of the crash has ever been show, despite the pentagon have a camera every 10m on the outside and every inch being screened inside. Their was also a story that some petrol station that had a camera facing in the direction of the crash had its tape confiscated. Lastly, some 'specialists' said that with the amount of fuel on board due to the flights being trans continental the area arouund the pentagon under some law would have to be declared an environmental hazard or something, meaning all the immediately effect land would have to be extrtacted.
* The plane that crashed into the ground (flight 93) had previously been reported by some media source as being grounded due to suspision of a bomb being on board, yet a short time after the incident supposedly took place the plane had crashed into the ground?
* Numerous firefighters etc who saw the towers collapse were shocked at the uniform collapse of the towers, and even stated at the time that it was 'like' demolition charges. And this kinda sounds right to, if the main support thingys at the top of the crash gave way, wouldnt the top of the building fall away and then maybe the building collapse? Instead, it fell on itselfs perfectly and then entire strucutre, for such a LARGE building, didnt spread out to far as you would expect from a uncontrolled collapse.
* Lastly, they use the fact that previous governments during the cold war had consideried attacking their own people to raise disconentment towards Russia as evidence that they would do such a thing
Discuss?
Last edited by a moderator:
