Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Shadowrage on September 14, 2003, 08:42 PM
The rest of the debate seems to consist of claiming him to be "Ignorant" or an "idiot" these i would like to point out are not arguments or valid contributions just comments bought around by not really having anything important to say.  

I thought I made a post trying to suggest methods for confirming or disproving theories. If you really care about this, you should go and look for someone who was along the path the plane supposedly flew along and talk to them. A plane is too large to just disappear if someone has seen it at a reasonable distance from the pentagon.

I also tried to point out that there is insufficient data here to do anything but speculate. None of what EvilCheese's linked page said can, at least in my opinion, be seen as enough to prove their point, it's all just speculating stuff.

QuoteHitman, i think you have failed to see cheese's use of the term "common" media, these stories would not appear in the regular press as it would draw attention to facts people do not wish to see or hear.

Quote
http://abcnews[/u].go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/regime_changes021203.html

I belive abc news would be considered "common" media, no? :-/

Yes that would be classed as common media.

Thus why in its mention of regime changes does it fails to point out that the CIA placed the ba'ath party in a position of power (Saddam being the leader of this group) in iraq

Aswell as not mentioning the above it fails to point out the reasons why it happend? The Iraqi Government before the ba'ath party could not come to a "reasonable" agreement over oil with the US.  

This thread sucks; threads should have their own karama.

Quote from: Camel on September 16, 2003, 05:29 PM
This thread sucks; threads should have their own karama.

And I think that when somebody's Karma proportion is as low as yours, he isn't entitled to an opinion and, in fact, should be banned from the forums.  If only my opinion counted for something.  Wait, it does!

I don't find the Karma system to be very fair. People can be roasted for only voicing an opinion, not even saying something offensive or flaming. Although I do admit to having done some flaming and a couple times said something inapropriate, most of my Karma I'd say comes from having a different opinion on (many) different subjects.

I give people +1 karma for a good or useful response to a question, and -1 karma for a useless response or a flame.  I voice a lot of opinions that go contrary to other people, and I have a lot more positive karms.

But this is a better discussion left for another topic.  Any further discussion of this in this thread will be deleted.  

edit: made it bold

That's an interesting way of doing it. Maybe if we only allowed certain people to give karma, that would work out nicely...

PBS had interviewed a guy and he stated that the wings folded back onto the airplane when it hit the pentagon. That pretty much explains it. I also have a hunch that most of the plane went further into the building preventing people from seeing it.

Quote from: Zorm on September 17, 2003, 09:56 PM
PBS had interviewed a guy and he stated that the wings folded back onto the airplane when it hit the pentagon. That pretty much explains it. I also have a hunch that most of the plane went further into the building preventing people from seeing it.

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no?  And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.

Quote from: iago on September 18, 2003, 01:13 AM

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no?  And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.

Quote from: Adron on September 18, 2003, 07:12 PM

Quote from: iago on September 18, 2003, 01:13 AM

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no?  And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.

Quote from: Adron on September 18, 2003, 07:12 PM

Quote from: iago on September 18, 2003, 01:13 AM

Look at the front-view pictures.. you should be able to see at least the back of it, no?  And there are other weird problems, too, like why we've never SEEN the plane on any camera, including the security cameras which recorded it.

Well, I haven't seen any security camera it was on, and no security camera it wasn't on either......

It makes sense that you don't see the tail. An airplane is very fragile and there would be very little left of it after a heavy impact into a nonmoving concrete structure. You may usually see parts of a wreck, but then the parts have slowed down gently sliding across the ground, not been forced to an immediate stop.

Not true, see my link in one of my previous posts...

And if you look at any of the pictures, there's no damage to the grass, so it couldn't have dragged along.

Id suggest going back and looking at the pictures again. I can clearly see pieces of the plane flying up in the security camera footage. Also when the firefighters are on the lawn you can see pieces in the lawn so look again.

If it wasn't a plane, what was it? Who was responsible? What motive did they have?

I expect answers more interesting than "car bomb," "terrorists," and "terrorism." Extra credit will be given for complete, well thought out, logical responses.

You may begin...now.

Quote from: Camel on September 18, 2003, 09:44 PM
If it wasn't a plane, what was it? Who was responsible? What motive did they have?

I expect answers more interesting than "car bomb," "terrorists," and "terrorism." Extra credit will be given for complete, well thought out, logical responses.

You may begin...now.

I'm not going to make any guesses, because I don't know what the reason might be.

And you obviously weren't look at my picture:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

There is no plane in that, and the reckage outside could be parts of anything.