[funsec] Could 9/11 Be A Conspiracy?
dudevanwinkle at gmail.com
Sat Mar 25 22:12:00 CST 2006
On 3/25/06, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:46:23 MST, Dude VanWinkle said:
> > Semi-Serioulsy though, the only real compelling evidence I ever heard
> > of a consipracy (on the governments part) was the fact that no wings
> > were found on the Penagon's lawn, and the fact that it would be really
> > hard for a trained pilot to fly a 747 that low to the ground.
> Take a stick, maybe 4-5 foot long, and a half-inch or so thick.
> Hold it horizontally across your chest, and proceed at a fairly good speed through
> a 3 foot wide door.
> Do the pieces end up inside the door, or outside?
> Now repeat, but douse the stick with gasoline and ignite it.
> Let me know how many pieces you find outside at that point.
Or a better (or just more thought out) question would be: how much of
the carpet is burned.
Take a look at some post 9/11 pentagon photos, look at the lawn, and
tell me a fully fueled 747 flown by someone who had never even been in
the cockpit, much less landed the entire thing; wrecked into a huge
portion of the pentagon with no deaths (inside the bureaucratic office
that is, plenty of them with my lineage (aka mutt fodder)) or
structural damage. Now imagine 4xThat. Now imagine the only planes
allowed to fly post attack was members of the persons family who would
be blamed for the attack pre-blame, then consider that all footage of
the attack on the pentagon was taken and never released (gas station
cameras caught the "plane" flying low, 1/4 mile from the hit).
€ven if it wasnt a conspiracy, it worked out really well for the
powers that be. Unlimited support for six years, billions of dollars
per week funneled to intrinsic supporters. Is it beyond the realm of
possibility that our "betters" dont give a squat about their
constituency, merely treat us as cattle, only to be considered once
every four years ?
Is it possible that abortion, creationism, etc, are merely tools used
to divide the already conquered,and not actually important issues?
Is it even _possible_ that one, who was raised by someone who knew he
lorded over all, but knew enough to maintain the impression that he
cared, was succeeded by his loin: one who knew nothing of loss or
pain, being given power he neither understood, nor had the capacity to
understand; the plight of those he lorded over or the capacity to feel
Post WWII (WWI?), we have collectively rolled-over for our "elected
officials", and per many better than I; you get the elected officials
you deserve. And buddy, we _deserve_ GWB. :-)
> And incidentally, every trained pilot has absolutely no problem flying that
> low to the ground. It's called "landing".
> Also, if you *think* about it for a moment, the single biggest problem with
> *landing* a plane is that since you're coming in at a 10 degree angle or so,
> even a 10 foot vertical difference ends up being several hundred feet down the
> runway. This can suck, especially if you then lose some more runway riding the
> ground effect. That's how you end up going off the far end of the runway.
> On the other hand, if you're *trying* to hit a vertical target, a 10 foot
> difference just means you hit the top of that window on the 3rd floor instead
> of the top of the window on the second floor. And in this case, ground effect
> is your friend...
More information about the funsec