| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68123 | 2006-04-18 09:04:00 | Conspiracy theory anyone | Barnabas (4562) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 447352 | 2006-04-21 09:09:00 | Also, the buildings themselves would have been designed to collapse straight down in the event of such a scenario (do you really want them falling sideways???) I don't think the buildings collapsing were even remotely considered in their (or any building's) design or construction. They were built to withstand massive winds (apparently to the level of a huge impact ie. plane), fires etc. |
HadO (796) | ||
| 447353 | 2006-04-21 09:20:00 | The thing that pisses me off the most is that anyone who publicly asks any questions about stuff like this is immediately branded as "crazy" by the media or just flat out ignored. His questions are valid - if you think otherwise you are part of the problem. his questions are a repetition of every conspiracy theorist who thinks they are the expert in the field of aeronautical engineering. charlie sheen is a washed up drug addict/actor whos trying to increase his media exposure. i have looked at the evidence that some conspiracy theorists have put forward that they believe proves that it was a conspiracy, but quite honestly, they are just trying to scrape together threads of possible but unlikely situations. was shadbolt driven off the road in southland? was it a conspiracy? was sky satellites downtime a conspiracy? could be.... oh motorbycilist i assume your comment about a fire inhibitor in the fuel was a joke. |
Tux (606) | ||
| 447354 | 2006-04-21 09:27:00 | Personal attacks aside - his questions are still valid and will remain to be until they are answered... Wouldn't you like to see the video frames of the alleged plane smash into the pentagon just to see if it really did? I sure would and I would say about half of the US would too. |
HadO (796) | ||
| 447355 | 2006-04-21 09:32:00 | I don't think the buildings collapsing were even remotely considered in their (or any building's) design or construction. They were built to withstand massive winds (apparently to the level of a huge impact ie. plane), fires etc. the wtc was designed to withstand the impact of a 707, not a 767, which is much heavier, and faster, and a larger wingspan. i just dont get why you expect a building to explode outwards like in the movies (i presume). it was not an explosion, it was the structural integrity of the buildings were compromised and collapsed like a deck of cards. the planes sliced the elevator shaft which caused an enormous fire throughout the length of the building. you just have no idea whatsoever. |
Tux (606) | ||
| 447356 | 2006-04-21 09:33:00 | Personal attacks aside - his questions are still valid and will remain to be until they are answered... Wouldn't you like to see the video frames of the alleged plane smash into the pentagon just to see if it really did? I sure would and I would say about half of the US would too. from where? the hotel? how do you even know the cameras were pointing at the pentagon, what about the petrol station? isnt that enough proof. have a look, i clearly see a large jet. dont you?? |
Tux (606) | ||
| 447357 | 2006-04-21 09:38:00 | Personal attacks aside - his questions are still valid and will remain to be until they are answered... Wouldn't you like to see the video frames of the alleged plane smash into the pentagon just to see if it really did? I sure would and I would say about half of the US would too. oh and lol, do you think celebrities actually give a rats arse about starving children in africa? or animal rights in zoos? NO. rofl, they are just looking for publicity. any publicity is good publicity. and the minute i start questioning the state and society from a confessed and convicted drug addict you'll be the first to find out. |
Tux (606) | ||
| 447358 | 2006-04-21 09:47:00 | Obviously I'm way out of my depth... I had no idea there was an expert on the subject/eye witness etc in the house - I will digress... If you had actually seen the frames that have been released there is a camera at the pentagon pointing at the impact site - it's the pentagon *** - you think it wouldn't have been caught on camera? Get a clue. Troll. |
HadO (796) | ||
| 447359 | 2006-04-21 09:56:00 | from where? the hotel? how do you even know the cameras were pointing at the pentagon, what about the petrol station? isnt that enough proof. have a look, i clearly see a large jet. dont you?? Where can one see these photos or videos from the gas stations security camera? |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 447360 | 2006-04-21 10:10:00 | Obviously I'm way out of my depth... I had no idea there was an expert on the subject/eye witness etc in the house - I will digress... If you had actually seen the frames that have been released there is a camera at the pentagon pointing at the impact site - it's the pentagon *** - you think it wouldn't have been caught on camera? Get a clue. Troll. im sorry dear, have i offended you, want a tissue to wipe those glum tears from your face? i had not seen the 5 frames controversy, but i have had a look at it. just one thing, if it wasnt a 757, then this photo must surely be photoshopped www.popularmechanics.com MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS |
Tux (606) | ||
| 447361 | 2006-04-21 10:21:00 | www.popularmechanics.com MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS LMFAO You mean tears from laughter... I'm convinced. :lol: :lol: :lol: |
HadO (796) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||