Damn

gekko

Much less calm than you
Sep 14, 2004
352
0
16
I wonder

I found this on a friends IM profile, I'm not sure what I think about it but its pretty fucking freaky and it does really make you wonder.
 
I think Gordon didn't do a great job stirring up interest and that Nils killed the thread with his silly half-asleep posting, but I expected this shit to generate at least a little interest, especially from lizard, mindspell, alex if he were here, and others.

I don't personally know what to think. I think it was well done, and seems to be intriguing, though I'd like to hear others' opinions. It's possible you've all seen this before and dismissed it as a bunch of hogwash already, in which case, I'd like to hear that discussion too.
 
It is interesting but I don't have anything to add really, hence the silence. I had already read suspicions that it wasn't a 727, which is entirely possible. I don't buy into the missile theory. The only way I could see that as a missile would be if it was a lost missile in an attempt to shoot down the 727 while in the air because of its threat to the nation. Even then that is a far fetched idea.

It could have been a smaller plane, which I would buy a little more.
 
If it was a smaller plane though, what you have to ask yourself is, what happened to the 727 that was hijacked?
 
Shot down over the ocean. The administration made a tough decision to kill some few hundreds people instead of a few thousands had it crashed. Decided to cover up so that it wouldn't look so bad, although it was not a bad call to make IMO.
 
The question I have about the smaller sized plane is, would it have had the necessary weight/force to bust through all those walls. I mean the mass difference between a 727 and a commuter jet sized aircraft is pretty substantial.
 
It is a problem if it was a cesna but take a Bombardier Regional jet and I see it easily going through those walls.

im_3_1_g.jpg


Also the flawed argument of the flash is that crashed planes leave marks and carcasses on the ground. That doesn't have quite the same way when it goes through a building. Had it crashed on the groud before it hit the building, yes, but not if it goes directly into the building
 
out of curiosity, what makes you dismiss it as bunk right off the bat?
 
"right off the bat"? i saw that flash a long time ago when it came out, and i read a lot of the arguments put forth in that wack french book. soooo i dunno if you can say "right off the bat".
 
Which part of the theory is wrong? Is it that flight 77 (or whatever the number was) legitimately and undoubtedly crashed into the Pentagon, or is it just that the alternatives suggested by the creators of the flash are clearly wrong?
 
pretty much both of those. the flash is derivative of the french book with distorts and misrepresents the facts. one of the big parts of the french book was "TEH WINGZ ARE MISSING!!!" and people thoroughly went through and explained exactly where the wings were, etc. and why that was crap.