I'm not talking about you guys, of course, but I posted this on some other forum:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm
And people went totally berserk, called me derogatory names, and insisted that I delete my post. I did in the end, and I'm not sure I want to go back to that forum. There's some seriously bad vibes going on there.
So why are some people so close-minded and believe everything the media tells them?
Okay, I'm just so frustrated. I need to cool down.
Quote from: Geoffkhan on Fri 22/10/2004 16:47:26
So why are some people so close-minded and believe everything the media tells them?
Becasue they're American :=
Seriously, though, Interesting points.... I hope that a new administration in the US might consider a new investigation
I really love the conspiration theories, but I don't really understand this one. Ã, :-\ So, what's the point? Bush ordered a F-15 to hit the Pentagon, se he'd be able to have more excuses to start war on terror or something?
I am not offended by the theory and this does not make me feel any negative feeling about you, (like happened in the other forums, apparently) it is just that I don't understand why the US Goverment would have like to hide that it was a missile or a hijacked small passengers plane. Ã, ??? Shouldn't that put one more plane in the scene? Better for the pro-war on terror! Terrorist have missiles? Better for the pro-war on terror!
So, what's the point??? If you could explain it to me... I am really interested. Ã, :)
*EDIT* Lol, I found a page that apparently had physical explanations of the 11S, but it appears to be down! Gestapo???Ã, ;D
Do you want a new one? One of the planes had missiles attached to its bottom to cause more damage...Ã, ;D
(http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/tanks.jpg)
http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html
On the other hand, I've also found this:
Quote
Modeling Rumors: The No Plane Pentagon French Hoax Case by Serge Galam
"The recent astonishing wide adhesion of french people to the rumor claiming `No plane did crash on the Pentagon on September the 11", is given a generic explanation in terms of a model of minority opinion spreading. Using a majority rule reaction-diffusion dynamics, a rumor is shown to invade for sure a social group provided it fulfills simultaneously two criteria. First it must initiate with a support beyond some critical threshold which however, turns out to be always very low. Then it has to be consistent with some larger collective social paradigm of the group. Othewise it just dies out. Both conditions were satisfied in the french case with the associated book sold at more than 200 000 copies in just a few days. The rumor was stopped by the firm stand of most newspaper editors stating it is nonsense. Such an incredible social dynamics is shown to result naturally from an open and free public debate among friends and colleagues. Each one searching for the truth sincerely on a free will basis and without individual biases. The polarization process appears also to be very quick in agreement with reality. It is a very strong anti-democratic reversal of opinion although made quite democratically. The model may apply to a large range of rumors. "
It was really a UFO :o
Well, I don't know why people would be so upset at you Geoff... You got to remember that not all places in Internet have such cool and open-minded people that you usually find on the AGS forums... perhaps wherever you posted it before was where people were rather overly sensitive/defensive on such a subject.
I thought the video was interesting, and makes one think about what might have "really" happened.
I found it strange that the Pentagon, one of the most technologically advanced complexes anywhere in the world, has a shoddy surveillance camera like that.Ã, All we get is five frames?
I also found it funny that nobody/nothing else ANYwhere captured the incident on film.
So this little video, though dramatized for effect, does point out a lot of the same questions I've always had.
I would like to know what happened ... but it's probably one of those things that will forever be guessed upon, like the JFK assassination.
If they want to cover it up, it'll be covered up.
I love stuff like that. They all seem use exactly the same advertising techniques of the stuff telling you everything is okay. :p
I thought this was pretty cool too: http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/whatbarrysays
I don't remember that they ever mentioned that a plane crashed into the pentagon. I remember hearing a helicopter or something, but then on 9/11 around noon, all stories about the pentagon stopped and every channel kept showing those planes crashing into the towers for a whole week. Maybe the gov't didn't want stations to cover that because of security and the pentagon and all.
But then again, why would it hit a section that it's under renovation and not many people were there at the time? Hmm... it makes you think.
I thought EVERBODY already knew it was a rocket/missile.
For some reason, that flash movie is more believeble then the 8 o clock news.
Am I being brainwashed by this movie...
...or could it be that I see all people as potential liars with their own agenda's, nowadays...
Quote from: netmonkey on Fri 22/10/2004 22:18:21
But then again, why would it hit a section that it's under renovation and not many people were there at the time? Hmm... it makes you think.
yes it does :p lol
anyway yes people of america(no offense) is so paranoid and always have something REALLY secret going lol
maybe terrorist knew more than we know :p
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148
Why would they destroy the tape if it contained evidence that backed up what the news reports said?
I do like things like this, but not at 1am when i'm about to go to bed ¬_¬ I find the video quite chilling.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg111258.html
here are some pictures and some text
just throwing it out there, otherwise it's a very nicely produced flash movie
i actually think people that have a problem with people being close minded are pretty close minded themselves, i'm open minded and just let people be...
Interesting point Boyd.
I don't really have a problem with people being close-minded. I'm actually just more amazed that some people believe everything the media tells them without question. But then again, that could be close-mindedness on my part. :)
Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 23/10/2004 04:15:35
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg111258.html
here are some pictures and some text
just throwing it out there, otherwise it's a very nicely produced flash movie
Now I'm really confused! Thanks for posting that link, though.
It's good to get the "other side's" view before making any conclusions, because, of course, every side seems convincing by itself.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
This has a prety good case against the theories that say it was a missile or something. Snopes is generally pretty good in my opinion with stuff.
Most of the websites I've read that disprove the conspiracy theory simply answer the questions from this website: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
This website isn't really that good, and it doesn't address the more important issues, like for example, the sound a Boeing would make. If the Boeing was indeed 5 feet off the ground, the sound would be deafening, would it not?
But then again it's all eyewitnesses' reports and photos. Both are falible. I don't know what to believe.
The conspiracy theory is intriguing, but as you say Geofkhan seems to be based largely on eye-witness testimony. There are few thingsless reliable than eye-witness testimony. I know, I was there.
There is a philosophy in objetivism, which is called "Occam's knive". It bassicaly says that when there are two theories for explaining the same thing, the easiest is the correct. Example: We throw a stone to a glass, theory a)Says that the stone broke the glass, theory b)Says that the glass has broken spontaneously by a sum of facts in the previous instant the stone was going to hit it, and that the stone broken the glass in just a visual illussion. With Occam's theory we should choose as the correct the theory a.
If we apply that to the Pentagon issue, I think that it is easiest to believe that the missile theory is all a big hoax that a complicated conspiration theory, but that could just be my appreciation...
I watched it through a couple of times, and although I was a little taken the first time, subsequent viewings lead me to dismiss it.
The bit where it reads "undamaged cable spools", you can clearly see where the wings smashed into the buildings.
And in other shots there are clearly two symmetrical black spots either side of the impact location where fuel from the wing engines, hit the pentagon, and subsequently burnt. I assume the wings then collapsed and followed the fuselage into the pentagon.
The surveillance camera is quite convincing. But it was probably taken at an angle, and the video makers have left it pixelated - a better visual could be found by blurring the pixels together, and then sharpening..
still open minded tho :)
The plane crashed in the land before touching the building, that's why the hole in the building is smaller that the length between wings. There is a very famous pic of the engine in an inner ring in the bulding, I don't know why they do say there is no plane debris...
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomtwo/wreckage.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon_debris_logo.jpg)
There are even recognisable parts of the plane, God Lord!
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/global-hawk-wheel-wreckage.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/freedomtwo/pa_00239.jpg)
There are a lot of forensic evidences... Some of the "evidences" in the flash are just stupid (The expansive wave should have made the cars in the roadway nearby blow!!!) :p
So... what was this? (http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/laternen/lamp003.jpg) I don't thinkit was caused by the wave, actually, but the car crashed because the confusion of the plane crash... You can see that there is a lot of space between the road and the crash site to be affected by a "wave" though...
There were no witnesses of the plane hitting the building...Ã, sure? http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
What about the call of Barbara Olson? http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp%2Ddyn/A14365%2D2001Sep11%3Flanguage=printer
Maybe she was not seeing what she was seeing... Maybe she was seeing a big stage pretending to be Washington, all made by Bush in a secret place in Texas... Of course all the rest of the witnesses were drugged and took there to make the hoax more plausible.... In that very time, the Army of the U.S. threw a missile to the Pentagon, to start a war... There's no need to say that Bin Laden is an actor, friend of Bush, whose real name is Mark McCormick.
Really... One thing is being open minded... and another is to spread with joy a no-sense theory because we do not like Bush and it should be a pleasure to demostrate that he launched a missile against the Pentagon, but this is just rediculous.
There are thousand of urban myths, but only 1% of those are real, and in many times the myth has been distortioned. Don't you see Mythbusters in Discovery Channel? Get a cable!!! ^_^