?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

to conspire

According to this video, the idea that a Boeing 757 caused the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11 does not even remotely jive with the evidence.

link: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

Very interesting.



I'd like to read to responses to this that do not make us of the words "liberal" or "conspiracy." Use of these words or synonyms therefore in this context indicate negligible cognitive function.

Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
uminthecoil
Dec. 5th, 2004 08:11 am (UTC)
yeah...a friend an I were talk'n about that very same thing about a week ago...it's pretty clear that a slick or not so slick cover has gone down...yet more creepy shit buried under abortion and gay marrage babble...ugh
i_s_d
Dec. 5th, 2004 08:25 am (UTC)
... come on ... jesus christ ... this is why anarchists don't ever get anything done ... they aren't limited to the confines of reality like the rest of us.
kmo
Dec. 5th, 2004 08:36 am (UTC)
provincial variances in the country of consensus reality
I cross-posted this to the libertarianism community. You might enjoy the discussion it has sparked over there.

link: http://www.livejournal.com/community/libertarianism/844740.html
carocrow
Dec. 5th, 2004 08:52 am (UTC)
It is interesting to me that when I discuss these things with my Mom (and I really try not to, but they occasionally show up on Fox News) she is open to discussing them as a possibility, within the parameters of "the government doesn't tell us everything because they don't want us to panic".

I read a lot about these things right after 9/11 and then it seems all the theories submerged and I wasn't hearing about them as often. The other inexplicable occurrence is the way the towers collapsed in on themselves, as if they were set up for demolition rather than being destroyed by traumatic accident and fire. The "jet fuel down the elevator shafts" explanation doesn't ring true.

As much as I'd like to know the truth about all these things, I do think we'll have to wait until the principals are dead, like we always do.
kmo
Dec. 6th, 2004 09:03 am (UTC)
When the smoke clears
As much as I'd like to know the truth about all these things, I do think we'll have to wait until the principals are dead, like we always do.

That's pretty much my take on it, as well.

I cross-posted this to the libertarianism community, and I find that as I watch the results come in that I'm far less interested in theories for or against the official story of what happened that morning three years ago. What interests me is how people who favor the red faction of our single party federal government snap immediately into the programmed reactionary mode of trying to use the "conspiracy theory" label to ridicule people into silence when they find flaws in the official story.

The federal government clearly thinks that conspiracies are real as they charge and imprison people for conspiracy all the time. Would the Fox News crowd mock the FBI as a whacked out group of conspiracy theorists if the FBI asserted that muslim extremists had conspired to commit acts of terrorism? The "conspiracy theory" label with its conotations of aluminum foil head hats only gets applied to discredit people who suggest that the people at the top of the world's most powerful dominance hierarchies conspire with one another to secure, maintain, and increase their hold on power. To me, that's a no-brainer.
carocrow
Dec. 6th, 2004 09:09 am (UTC)
Re: When the smoke clears
Yes... but the only point on which they've admitted to using that technique is with UFOs.

I am really surprised at the Libertarians. I guess I never realized what tight asses they are, I always thought they were about less government and realignment with the constitution, and drug rights, etc. Most of them now are just rogue elephants.
kmo
Dec. 6th, 2004 11:23 am (UTC)
rogue elephants
I always thought they were about less government and realignment with the constitution, and drug rights, etc. Most of them now are just rogue elephants.

Somebody posted an age survey to that group a while ago, and at the time I completed the survey, at age 36, I was the second oldest person in the group. Lots of youngsters and college kids in that community, and as we've discussed before, folks tend to get more pragmatic with age and less ferocious about their ideologies. Folks on a growth track anyway. Some people take the political stances they held at age 18 to the grave.

Still, the age factor aside, not many folks in that community toe the Libertarian Party line. Many of them don't seem to care that much about the drug war, and some of them express support for it, and a good contingent of them respond like Rush clones whenever anyone posts something that pushes the typical ditto-head emotional hotbuttons.

That said, I stick around because a few people on that list know a lot more about history and economics than I do. Unfortunately, those folks don't tend to post nearly as often as the rogue elephants.
humandays
Dec. 5th, 2004 11:32 am (UTC)
some good basic debunkings of the no-757 -theory
sutut
Dec. 5th, 2004 12:04 pm (UTC)
The last I'd heard about the Pentagon's 'vulnerability', I'd seen learning channel stuff where it mentioned it could survive a 5 megaton explosion nearby outside. Laughable by today's standards, but in the days when bombs were bulky, rare, low-powered, had to be delivered by slow bomber and very, very expensive it was a good precaution. That is also why they made the building that way, so the blast would be reflected more than absorbed.

I don't need to use any of the words you don't want me to. Frankly, it looked like that jet took out a WING. If the building was as strong as they said it was, a plane might still penetrate it, but it souldn't destroy more than a couple offices.

Conspiracy? Well, maybe someone was lying for non-sinister reasons. That is, if it came to WWIII the entire building would be moot point, so they just TOLD PEOPLE that and re-used the money for more important things. If I remember history right, it was built just after WWII so the millitary was probably more efficent in spending money.

Frankly, the building had too many windows for it's boast, IMHO, though that's not my area of science. However, I think if I really wanted it to survive a blast aboveground, I'd make the walls monolithic concrete, angled at 33.3. The entrances would be by underground tunnels while the top would be a very thick acrylic 'jewel' that was recessed enough not to be in a groundburst's 'rays' but be high enough not to give a firestorm drag.

33.3 is the natural angle sand falls at based on gravity. The egyptians built a few that way until they got better at engineering so they could get 45 degrees. Therefore, at 33.3 no special engineering/vulnerability issues would occur, it would be a huge barrier/deflector.

I think if the building was built this way, it would be MUCH more resiliant to any blast. It could take almost anything as long as it wasn't big and near enough to disentegrate all matter. Also, the 747 would have skipped off like a stone, hopefully absorbing the fire and debris to protect the nearby buildings.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2017
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes