And why?  Buildings such as the Pentagon or the White House, or Camp David, or Annapolis, or CIA Headquarters, so much more inviting as a target!  And if you did down a ship at sea, there would be no way-cool crater and rubble pile to display to your friends back home!  Only a big hole in the water.

So.. that means… this song I learned to sing in preschool… is really terrorist propaganda?  Or a secret code to begin the attack? Im shocked… appalled… lets get it banned!

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/holesea.htm

There’s a hole in the middle of the sea
There’s a hole in the middle of the sea
There’s a hole, there’s a hole
There’s a hole in the middle of the sea…..

Hello Forum,

I recommend the DVD “In Plane Site.”  I’d also recommend the 911truth.org article that explains that the planes that hit the towers were smaller than the passenger planes they were purported to be.  The article may be in the archives.  I don’t know the title.  The film shows clearly what size the planes were because the towers can be used as measuring sticks.

Inquisitor

Hi Smerk,

You’d feel differently about 911 if you’d accept that the towers were hit by cargo planes.  After all, Fox News reported that “flight 175” had no windows.  There were plenty of eyewitnesses.  They weren’t hallucinating.

Inquisitor

I found an photo of one of the planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 that was taken earlier by a planespotter.

Note that it is not particularly easy to make out the windows, even in a good quality image like this. With the naked eye, on a fast moving airplane and at a much greater distance, I’m not surprised people didn’t see any windows. It doesn’t prove they weren’t there.

Hi David,

You apparently haven’t seen the DVD.  The Fox employee was so close to “175” that he saw it clearly wasn’t an airliner.  He would have seen the giant letters. 

Unless you believe that CNN altered the footage shown on the 911 video that can be ordered by the general public, the planes’ dimensions can’t be disputed.
If I were holding a ruler next to a model airplane,  you wouldn’t try to dispute its size.  The former towers’ widths are known.

Inquisitor

Oops!

I meant to say “can be ordered by the general public.”  I just corrected it.

Inquisitor

Accipiter,

If the government has nothing to hide, why haven’t they released the footage from all the other Pentagon security cameras?  The event was captured by cameras from many angles.  Why did they confiscate the footage from the gas station across the street?

Inquisitor

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Inquisitor

Er, Inquisitor, they just have released some of the footage form the Pentagon’s security cameras, it was on the BBC news channel last week. Still shows a passenger plane smashing in to the side of the building.

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

I agree, it’s quite ludicrous to believe foreign terrorists secretly planted tons of explosives in the WTC and I can’t believe how anyone could sensibly believe that. Of course, anyone else trying to plant tons of explosives would have exactly the same problem, hence it is just as ludicrous to believe explosives were planted by anyone.

Inquisitor - 21 May 2006 04:48 AM

Accipiter,

If the government has nothing to hide, why haven’t they released the footage from all the other Pentagon security cameras?  The event was captured by cameras from many angles.

Firstly, because it’s the Pentagon, and the Pentagon doesn’t make a habit of being very forthcoming.  Being the Department of Defense, they do have things to hide.  Secondly, because it’s all part of various criminal investigations, and such things aren’t usually made public.  And thirdly, because they already released still pictures, and have just released a video of it.  What, do you think that the airliner in that video was a big cardboard cutout, and that the other camera angles would show that it was hollow?

The whole event has been about as well documented as anything can be.  And if all the eyewitness testimonies, all the still photographs, and the video that they released aren’t enough for you, then you’re not going to believe anything.

Why did they confiscate the footage from the gas station across the street?

Inquisitor

Ummm. . .they took the footage from the gas station because it was this thing called “evidence”, which they need in order to conduct something called an “investigation”.  That’s what security camera footage is for.

Inquisitor - 22 May 2006 05:15 AM

Another key point: How could foreign terrorists spend weeks tearing down walls in order to plant explosives in all the WTC buildings?  One’s believing that they could pull off such a task without being detected would be colossal ludicrousness.

Indeed, quite ludicrous.  Which is why there couldn’t have been bombs planted in the buildings, and why it was the airplanes hitting them that damaged them.  Who needs bombs to damage a building, when you have tons of high-speed metal and thousands of gallons of highly combustable jet fuel?