|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 10, 2003 4:48:50 GMT -5
The conspiracy thing???
Can you see the way the “men who control America” are going???
What happens when Bush and co. calls the UN irrelevant???
After the US goes to war with Iraq without UN sanctions, who/what is next???
After the US gets control of the Iraqi oil and have installed their puppet government. How long before the blackmail of “oil dependent countries” begin???
After the “American built oil pipeline” through Afghanistan is blown up, who will be in a position of power to dictate prices???
When the “new government” of Iraq offers, on humanitarian grounds, “a homeland for displaced Palestinians”. Who will be able to defend the rights of a people who are having lands that they have owned/lived-on for over 3000 years stolen from them???
Believe me, it is easier to understand the above than it is to understand Mulholland Drive. Although in some ways they are very similar, in that to understand the movie, one has to realize that what appears to be true is really an imagined story, and what appears to be surreal and/or unimaginable, is really the truth. I am still waiting for the first piece of “tangible, rather than circumspect” evidence of 9-11 to be produced. Because, as of today, there is more evidence to disprove the official version of events, than there is to prove them.
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Mar 10, 2003 13:33:51 GMT -5
I just listened to Mike Gallagher ( a Rush Limbaugh wannabe) call for the US to drop out of the UN... The Idiot! Unfortunately- there are those amongst us in this country who agree with him!
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 11, 2003 15:07:49 GMT -5
Danny some Democrat from Virginia blasted a jewish reporter saying that the jews were behind the war.
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 11, 2003 18:22:30 GMT -5
Danny, so what's your take on 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Mar 11, 2003 19:32:11 GMT -5
Mulholland Drive, is that a similar type of concept to Arlington Road?
I agree with your thinking on that one Danny.It all seems to be going according toa well orchestrated script. I just wonder who the director is........
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 11, 2003 22:58:14 GMT -5
TC, That’s the kiss of death for him/her in american politics then. Pabs, In all the pictures of the pentagon there is no sign of any plane wreckage, you can discount the stupid dubbed AA tail on an otherwise perfect lawn. The hole cause by the missile, opps, plane, was to small for the wingspan of the reported Boeing, so there should be plenty of identifiable wreckage around. And this is from the lips of Bush; “Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." Pabs, how did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC in real time? Answer, the people who planed the attack were filming it and sending a direct feed to Bush's private TV. This is the web site where you can find the transcript of the full speech. The above is near the end of the transcript. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.htmlAnd he has said the same thing again here, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.htmlRaptor, Mulholland Drive; that was a play on Srrh saying, in an unrelated post, he could not understand the film, it's a brilliant film, however, you need to rent the video/DVD, because you have to watch it more than once to try and understand what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 12, 2003 3:14:52 GMT -5
Dannyboy,
Not that I want to contradict your "conspiracy theory", especially since I do believe there is some truth behind it, but I'm curious about what you mentioned with regards to the Pentagon.
You seem to imply that there was no plane that hit it, and instead it was a missile. Now I have read reports stating that people certainly saw a plane crash on the Pentagon, and in a forum made up of alumni from my school (International School of Geneva), I have also read posts by people that I know, who claim they saw the plane. Still, if these are untrue, then what happened to the plane? It is my understanding that a plane was lost over Washington, one full of passengers who are now dead. I just don't see how that could be fabricated. Again, I'm not explicitly saying you are wrong, but I really would like to know more from your perspective.
Certainly with regards to the flight lost over Philadelphia, I tend to believe that it was actually shot down by the airforce, but that there was no plane crashing in to the Pentagon....
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 12, 2003 10:39:21 GMT -5
Danny,
I have heard witness accounts of what happened and I still firmly believe that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. Now it was my understanding that the airplane didn't actually hit the Pengaton first but rather it hit the lawn and then it went on to crash onto the Pentagon. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Either way, why do you expect the hole to have the same wingspan as the airplane? The entire airframe will buckle and collapse and the wings will be ripped off before they can make that much damage to a building like the Pentagon. In fact, that's why the damage it caused was not as significant as the damage the other airplanes caused to the WTC: the Pentagon is no common building.
Regarding Bush's speech, have you considered that maybe he actually saw the second plane hit the tower and he thought it was the first one? I saw that second plane hit the north tower live on CNN and I thought it was footage of the first crash until it was reported later that a second plane had in fact hit the WTC.
I really don't think much of this conspiracy theory. IMO it is very very far fetched. Remember Occam's Razor. Besides, Bush may be an idiot and what have you....but it requires a twisted criminal mind to kill 2000 people just like that, especially your own contrymen.
Henrik, The plane over PA was more than likely shot down...this I know almost for a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 12, 2003 10:50:08 GMT -5
A book actually came out in France about the plane on the pentagone...The theory of the missile thus came about because no wings or traces of them were found on pictures. What is more, no dammages have been inflicted on the building were the wings SHOULD have been... If that is the case, that would mean that the people behind 9/11 (whoever they are) were nothing but terrorists... After all, the pentagon was the only military target... That new tendency of killing civilians is making me nauseaus...especially when there are so many soldiers around...Of course soldiers are trained and they might want to fire back...so it's safer to hit civilians....Yellow pricks...all of them.... DB: This movie, unlike MD, is made By Georges W. Lynch (them all), and is seriously lacking in lesbo action!!! Maybe his daughters...errr, sorry about that.... Talking about daughters...did you guys catch Chelsea Clinton's new 120.000 dollars job in NY as an office clerk? Of course if her name was Chelsea Penylessminority, she'd be working at Mc D's for 6 bucks an our. Even if she had an IQ of 140 (which she doesn't)...What has changed since the 17th century ? can someone help me? S...
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 12, 2003 10:59:54 GMT -5
This is the lawn, see any skid marks or wreckage anywhere? I know Bush is not the brightest of people, but if he saw the second plane hit the WTC, then he would have known/seen the first tower was already on fire. Ever heard the expression "The bigger the lie, the easier to fool people".
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 12, 2003 11:10:28 GMT -5
Well, I suppose I'm also an idiot because I thought I was seeing footage from the first crash. It is very easy to comment on these things on hindsight Danny: he should have noticed this or that.
Regarding the picture, is it possible the airplane hit near the base of the building and then tipped over? Or maybe it hit high and most of the wreckage is inside the pentagon.
Ever heard "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one"?
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 12, 2003 11:11:41 GMT -5
Srrh, you are right...civilians MUST not be targetted and it really gets to me every time someone does that.
|
|
|
Post by Srrh on Mar 12, 2003 12:02:55 GMT -5
Pabs, according to you (you are much wiser then me in things concerning the armed forces-amongst other things-) when did this trend affectively start? WWII with the bombing of cities like London, Dresden, Hiroshima etc...? Or was it always the case ie: the barbarian used to pillage and rape any conquered city in the middle and dark ages?
It seems to me that today, civilians are often the prime targets (Yougoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Ireland...all the way to Colombia)...any thoughts/explanation?
S...
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 12, 2003 13:58:38 GMT -5
to many eye witnesses gave to much detail as to waht happened. On the day of Sept 11, CNN, Fox, MSNBC all had people who say this crash on the phone giving the same story almost immediately as it happened. I got a buddy taht saw the plane.
Plus lets not forget the bodies and jet parts that were pulled out of the wreckage.
As for the WTC, Bush was in an elementry school reading books to kids when the first plane hit. I saw that footage.
Also Danny, you did bring one thing up. There were reports that Israelis were filming the entire WTC event from a shore in New Jersey. Fox even reported this. Also, reports from Wall Street show big money people like (george soros) sold a ton of airline stock just before this all happened.
|
|
|
Post by raptor22 on Mar 12, 2003 18:16:45 GMT -5
Danny, I'll rent the DVD this weekend and comment.
But to get back to the Pentagon 'incident'; My first impression was that it had been hit by a GBU-28 bunker Buster Laser Guided Bomb or similar weapon. Well basically a penetrator type device. My reasoningf or that was that the walls off the Pentagon Building are made of Extra thick reinforced Concrete and even though an aircraft the size of a 767 would not penetrate it's walls as easily as it seems in the aftermath pictures. Also the blast seems to have been very localised - most fo the surrounding windows are still intact.
An aircraft crumpling and colliding with a building should leaves a large area of fire damage and possibly damage to the windows butthe main structure of something that heavy should remain in tact. From the photo's it can be seen that the walls have collapsed andthe area seems to small tohave been caused by an aircraft.
If the plane has slip into the building the engines would have broken off and impacted with the building. There does not appear to be any damage consistent with engine impact. All the damage is centralised.
How do you kill 2000 people, easy, you make sure they never existed inthe first place, use government employees to 'mourn on TV' for realism.
If you have as much power as the Rep gov. of the USofA tthen you can creat anything youlike and control media access to it. The event itself was so big that simple thoings wouldhave escaped even the most hardened journalist.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, merely that it is a possibility.
|
|