Viewing Thread:
"Pentagon Conspiracy Theory"

I highly recommend you watch this if you haven't seen it before.

[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]

or

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm



Seems pretty feasible to me.

Everyone should just relax around here a bit.

monkey_man wrote:

> He's probably fed up with the imbeciles that believe this sort of
> crap. I mean - what happened to the plane and all the people for
> crying out loud!?!?! Even if they crashed it into the sea there
> would still be wreckage, no matter how remote they made it, someone
> would find it sooner or later - that's not a risk anyone would take.

Oh, you're just not looking at this from a proper Conspiracy Theory Point of View. You know; the kind that ignores such trifling things as "evidence" and "facts" by claiming that the evidence and facts don't even exist, and even if they did, should be ignored.

I've just realised actually; fundamentalist religious zealots are nothing more than conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy in this case being God and His wishes.

gerrid wrote:
> I love it when they disprove conspiracy theories that have been
> running for years. You always get the odd fanatic who just won't
> believe the truth, though.
>
> Oh and Goatbi sure blew his load over this thread.

He's probably fed up with the imbeciles that believe this sort of crap. I mean - what happened to the plane and all the people for crying out loud!?!?! Even if they crashed it into the sea there would still be wreckage, no matter how remote they made it, someone would find it sooner or later - that's not a risk anyone would take.

I love it when they disprove conspiracy theories that have been running for years. You always get the odd fanatic who just won't believe the truth, though.

Oh and Goatbi sure blew his load over this thread.

OK, so out of the hundreds of people that saw a large plane crash into the Pentagon, the conspiracy theorists find a handful that weren't sure and make that the basis for their argument that it was a small plane. You know what they call someone that isn't sure of what they saw? An 'unreliable witness'. The FBI confiscate CCTV footage - they're the FBI, that's what they do. If that material got into the open it would be used as anti-US propaganda.

And I don't know how many times you idiots have to be told this, but the type of gasoline used by planes is designed to expand and ignite as quickly as possible - hence the huge explosion on the security camera footage. That's why there isn't a lot of wreckage - it's all burnt up inside the building. Plus did you notice that none of the other plane crash photos involved planes that had hit buildings? How can you make that comparison when they are different conditions? The plane would have smashed on impact, and all the bits would have ended up inside the building. The pictures aren't clear enough to make out if the windows are smashed or not - yet they didn't bother finding better pictures to prove their point, when there are high quality pictures of everything else.

And the 'small plane' that can be seen on the CCTV footage. Ever heard of perspective? Maybe it's just futher away, or at a different angle so that it's outline appears smaller? That makes sense to me. The plane would have been travelling at well over 500pmh, and accelerating on a downwards slope, so it could easily have made the distance shown between CCTV images, and proves further why there is no wreckage outside the Pentagon. Break a window - does the glass smash inwards? Nope.

Any other points you want debunked? This is kinda fun.

I watched a program on the History Channel that was a conspiracy theory about the Titanic sinking was an insuance fraud by White Star Line.

I was getting taken in by the evidence, as it's sister ship was older or something and it would make sense to get insurance rather than run the ship.

Annnyyyway, the last ten minutes totally destroyed the theory whilst they told a diehard beleiver all this evidence. His face was excellent:

" I've just wasted my whole life trying to prove this crap "

Paradox: wrote:
> So everyone is entitled to have an opinion, so long as you agree with
> it Goaty?

Oh for fu...

That read like whining petulance, you do know that don't you? It's no better than Forest's wailing insistence that any disagreement with him is "Political correctness".

Yup, he clearly disagrees with you. Rather fervently. So? People disagree a lot and that disagreement can lead to strong words. Get over it.
>
> What proof do you have to support your claim? The stuff the media
> have released?
>
> If you've going to look at this from a true Conspiricy Theory point
> of view then the government controls the media, therefore what you
> see and hear.

I'm sorry, what? A true conspiracy theory POV? What you're suggesting is that people ignore the evidence as a whole and concentrate solely on the stuff that backs up their own opinion. And an opinion on a recorded incident that is unsupported by the evidence as a whole is called a "fantasy". The moreso in this particular case because there's barely even any circumstantial evidence to support it.

Tell me, do you always slavishly trust a source because it's "independent"? Cos if so, that makes you no better that those Indier-than-thou nobsocks who immediately hate a band whenever they enter the mainstream.

And do you always assume that someone who regards a conspiracy theory as not much more than lunatic ramblings of someone who desperately needs to believe that they and they alone know the TRUTH, is therefore incapable of giving an opinion on that theory?

>
> I just thought it was interesting, thats all. But hey, I guess that
> makes me a [insert silly childish collocation here].

No, your extraordinary petulance in seeing that someone rather violently disagreed with you makes you a [insert silly childish collocation here].





Incidentally, a while back I got taken in by this particular theory. Know what 2 things convinced me? Well, put it this way; where are the passengers that were on the plane that hit the Pentagon? Were they all just made up? Or were they executed by the evil US government to maintain the illusion?

Secondly, do you really think the eyewitnesses were just government stooges?

So everyone is entitled to have an opinion, so long as you agree with it Goaty?

What proof do you have to support your claim? The stuff the media have released?

If you've going to look at this from a true Conspiricy Theory point of view then the government controls the media, therefore what you see and hear.

I just thought it was interesting, thats all. But hey, I guess that makes me a [insert silly childish collocation here].

Goatboy wrote:
> It was a plane you #@&*ing retards, where do you tossfaces get off
> coming up with idiot stuff like this?

Yup, this file is olllllld.

Are you going to believe some random guy who's sat at their computer to make a film with biased evidence or the testimonials of several hundred people who saw a plane?!

i think that was already established goatboy.

lol at the guy in the video who said "i could smell cordite, i knew explosives had gone off somewhere". loads of things smell like others things *insert own joke here*. probably explosives in the building which got set off.

anyyyyyways, it was obviously a plane.