Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by OnDborder, May 16, 2006.
:rofl: Well at least the ID thread is gone... Maybe this one too? :rofl:
Wouldn't bother me.. can't debate anything if people just want to flame.
Truthfully I just don't care anymore. If I can't do anything about it than I'm not goin to get worried or frustrated about it.
Barbara Olson was a passenger on Flight 77(supposedly).
Where is her name in the S.S. Death Index?
All my dead relative's names are there.
Her married name was Barbara Olson.
Maiden Barbara Kay Bracher
Look 'em up. If she is dead her name ought to be in there, right?
You wanna have some real fun?
Look up any of the names on the list, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm. See how many are on the SSdeath index. I've done Suzanne Calley, Dora Menchaca, Christopher Newton, and not one of these were on there..
I have no life..
So I cross checked all 58 passengers of 77 against the SSDeath Index. 13 of 58 were in there.
Does anyone know why just 13?
Maybe aerolinies suddently fly half-empty planes? :lol:
But check this out:
Only one 2 interesting frames:
So, let's enlarge it:
Sure it look like a nose from Boeing 757, what do ya say?
Compaints? Rants? Oh, wait, Rummy will tell us better:
There was sugestions that the inaudible world is "drones" ...
United 93 - about flight 93 movie was released.
But it is really worth watching the movie, where even Americans in online forum showed how much far from the truth it is? They proved it to that degree, that censorship must step forward and act. And after "technical failure" all the posts and threads from their online forum mentioning the lies in this movie disapeared. Interesting.
Did you see flight 93?
Results from other crashes for reference:
Oh please not again... Especially not on the sad anniversary of that horrible attack. Whether a conspiracy or not, people DID die.
This conspiracy crap has gone on long enough, this isnt a political or idealogical argument, it's just another "driveby" for and not worthy of further comment.
bbislamist guy, what you are forgetting to say is that the pictures that you just showed were all from flights where the plane was flying at (relatively) very low speed. Was the US flight also going at very low speed?
And something else, stop this trolling.
Slow speeds? Dude a plane crash is never slow... I do think there are some weird glitches in this whole 911 hooobla but really, it doesn't matter. Nobody will believe the other party.
Listen, the last photo is from a plane very very close to the runway, it can't be going THAT fast... Also the middle one (the one on the hill) was a plane without fuel slowly reducing altitude and crashing because the pilots were not piloting the craft, but a passenger or something before losing his ability to fly it and crashing on the hill. Also very slow speed. And yes, slow speed is not like 50km/h but it is not 500 either. Probably less than 150 knots though, way less. Was the american flight also going at slow speed?
I got no clue mate... :lol: I've heard it was quite fast to be honest but don't quote me.
Questioning governments and "the establishment" is fine. IF you don’t believe the official version of events feel free to investigate the possibility of a conspiracy theory.
But ffs people apply the same level of scrutiny to the conspiracy theories that you do to the official line!
Take one of the commonly used images (one that was posted here) of a grainy object heading towards the pentagon. Conspiracy theorists claim the object cant be a plane and say its a missile. If you were really intelligent bbone (I will reframe from calling you gullible, directly anyway), you would do a little investigation and discover that the camera is a fish-eye camera, so the image is heavily distorted.
Lets just ignore that for a second, and look at something that proves it was a plane and not a missile. The lamp-posts on the roads next to the pentagon have been flattened by the wings of the plane, and the gap is too wide for a missile to have been responsible.
But being a good conspiracy theorist, you have many sane explanations - ill take a wild guess at some of them:
-The US government has secretly invented a missile that it capable of doing perfect turns at such high speeds that it was able to knock each one down individually and then fly onto the pentagon within the blink of an eye.
- the instant before the plane hit, the CIA used their time-freezing technology to freeze time knock the polls over with sledge hammers.
I don’t agree with Bush’s war on terror and im not some right-wing militarist nut job but the evidence is clear, planes struck the twin towers and pentagon.
Im prolly going to regret getting involved but this NS really frustrates me.
What about the things that sorta doubt the plane theory? Not much debris, no wing impacts in the building and a deep small round hole through layers and layers of reinfornced concrete... I didn't know aluminium fuselages could do that.
I don't mind conspiracies that are correct. Sure many things show that it was a plane but just as many do otherwise. Tis all in good fun anyways, nobody is making this their career or anything :duh:
Haven't people, witnesses actualy seen the plane hit the Pentagon? Why are we even discussing this?
I was thinking the same thing... from the images it seems that the B757 hit ground frist then pentagon it self...
Because half the witness say they saw a plane and others a cruise missile... :bleh: Honestly, how can you confuse a plane and a missile? :lol:
Not according to the camera thingy... Its a direct impact.
All the images that I've seen show’s me that engines hit the ground before impact to pentagon. Otherwise the area that collapsed should bee bigger...
Separate names with a comma.