Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > General Conspiracy Discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-10-2005, 05:58 AM
Minuteman Minuteman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Default Popular Mechanics


In the latest issue of Popular Mechanics there is and article about debunking the internet myths of 911. Popular Mechanics, a Hearst Puplication that frequently illustrates how our superior armed forces a winning the "war on terror" with their advanced military hardware. I say this is a good development, the more this remains in the news the better. I still want to know how a bunch of guys inept at car driving stole jets and from 30,000 feet up even found the Atlantic Ocean never mind arrive at their targets 15 minutes apart. Bullshit Popular Mechanics.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-10-2005, 08:57 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Yeh, right on Minuteman.

They have a good go at the "No Jet Hit The Pentagon" theory.

Mike Rivero of "What Really Happened" complains that only idiots believe anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon and is bragging that he warned the world the media would pick on this particular theory and use it to discredit the rest of 9-11.

My personal opinion is that the photographic evidence at the Pentagon indicates a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

As for the Pod People and missiles under the wings...get a life.

The Pentagon photo before the facade collapse clearly shows a nice neat cookie cutter hole around 20ft wide.

Where are the entry points for the densest part of the aircraft...the engines?

Some say the hole is from an engine...touche...where is the other hole?

Where is the major shattering of the edges of the hole where the wing roots impacted the building?

But what of the eye witness accounts you might say?

You mean the ones that claim a fully loaded 70 ton 757 passed 30ft over their heads at 400+ knots? You mean those witnesses?

As an experiemnt...go and sit at the end of a runway and watch a large passenger plane land by letting it pass just over your head. Thats right...you cant. And why is that?

Ever felt the buffeting from a passing road train or large truck? Now imagine a large object doing 400+ knots and you'll work out all by yourself that those eye witness accounts are bullshit.

400+ knots is so fast at low level you cant believe it. The wings must have been close to shearing.

Also the image of the explosion indicates to me a high explosive was involved, most likely that of a Tomahawk cruise missile.

Jet fuel burns bright orange. The initial explosion is clearly the white hot gas of a high explosive warhead with the billowing orange of the cruise missiles left over fuel load.

In the Northwoods document, they clearly state they would dress up a drone to look like a passenger plane. I believe they dressed up a cruise missile of some type and left the rest to low level and 400 + knots to finish off the illusion.

The evidence CLEARLY does not indicate a passenger airliner.

The eye witness accounts are badly flawed and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Oh and lets not forget the intact "nose cone".

Unless 757's are now fitted with DU penetrator nose cones I'd say that came from a cruise missile.

Go to CIA for a good analysis...
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2005, 09:56 PM
StoneWT StoneWT is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

How many people actually read the entire PM article?

9/11: Debunking The Myths

Wake up and stop letting yourself be pulled around by the nose by slick con artists pushing garbage theories like 'no plane' at the Pentagon.

Hunt The Boeing!

Try doing something besides watching crappy videos like Hufschmidt's bloatumentary or vonKleist's BS 'Plane Site' hoax and blindly accepting the 'facts' presented.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2005, 10:58 PM
Mawashi Mawashi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 64
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Read the PM article, and while it does raise some good points, I still strongly disagree with the article's mainstream arguments, especially since it tends to highlight a few of the sillier conspiracy theories, such as the pod on the 767, to try and gain the perceived high ground.

One that really irks me is the way the towers collapsed. It's unlikely that the heat of the fires would have been uniform enough to enable the towers to colapse so evenly - it looked very much like a professional demo job. Compare that with the skyscraper fire in Spain the other day: similar temperatures, but the whole buiolding didn't collapse, only a significantly weakened section of it did. Plus, thalmost identical fall patterns of both towers.

And don't even get me started on the pentagon thing. Planes have fallen from thousands of feet in the sky and hit the ground with far more debris than what was shown in pictures of the Pentagon crash site.

Then there's the whole motive for the incidents in the first place.

The NWO needed an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, events which had been planned long before. 9-11 was just perfect. Iraq has the oil they want, and Afghanistan provided the best route for the Caspian Basin gas pipeline, but the Taliban was making things difficult for them. Not to mention the Patriot Act, which would have been rejected as a Draconian assault on liberty had it been introduced without the spectre of terrorism hanging over Americans' heads. I'm sure they have loads of other plans as well, but those 3 just stare you in the face.

PM can throw in all the experts they like, but if they fail to see the bigger picture, they're just wasting ink and paper.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-15-2005, 12:37 PM
marypopinz marypopinz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Don't forget that Afghanistan has bountiful opium fields to fund black ops as the cocaine destributors of Columbia are too much to deal with...

They went their for the drugs too. Afghan hash is supreme world wide.
__________________
[size=medium]Freelance brain owner[/size] R U Darwin\'s monkey?[size=medium] HumanKIND = God\'s creation[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-15-2005, 01:52 PM
sandsplinter sandsplinter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

For some reason, I seem to remember the portion of the wall (pentagon) that was hit happened to be the newest and most fortified of the walls.

Possibly there was preparation or this was previously the most vulnerable???
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2005, 08:11 PM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Actually Stone...i was saying and posting these things before most.

I was one of the first to point out the jet engine blast and aircraft slip stream would have killed most of these so called witnesses.

Check out this little MPEG...
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/simulation.mpeg

It's most probably you being pulled around by the nose.

The evidence is clear.

No passenger airline hit the Penatagon.

I believe there's video of a news reporter on the scene immediately after the crash stating as far as he knew NO airliner hit the building.

As for the vids you want to pull apart. Never watched them.

I've worked with explosives and worked extensively melting metals.

Take one look at those WTC support beams. Take a good look. Can anyone really believe these all simultaneously buckled and snapped at the same time?

Jet fuel is nothing but highly refined kerosine. Most of it went out the other side of the building. Just let your eyes do the work.

The aircraft is made of lightweight aircraft aluminium. It's structure was severly compromised before it hit the central support beams and would have done little damage.

There are alot of people telling people at the moment what to watch and what not to.

Just use your eyes and your own critical faculties.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2005, 08:26 PM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Well, I actually bothered to read the PM article.

I was truly amazed. There argumants were pathetic. Absoloutly pathetic.

They could have just written..."shut up shut up the official version is correct!"

Stone, i dont know why you even bothered reading it.

The evidence is there for all to see right in front of your eyes.

Whatever the mild shortcomings of independent analysis they are still all over the pathetic and infantile denials of the talking heads on the telly and in this case some website called PM that tells us it's consulted the 'experts'.

The 'experts' are the new sacred caste of priests that try to tell us the Sun revolves around the Earth.

They're the same ones that explained the 'majic bullet theory' with some fancy physics. As Jim Garrison said..."these same people say they can prove an elephant can hang over a cliff with it's tail tied to a daisy. Use your eyes, your common sense".

I have spoken with people in the explosives field. A common reply is..."sure looks like a demoloition to me".

And so it was.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2005, 06:33 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: Popular Mechanics

Watched the little vid disputing Von Kleist.

Never watched Von Kleist, never had to. Please pod people, pack up your bat and ball and go home.

I was impressed with the simple pointing out of the cloud of debris that many said was a seperate explosion. That was about it.

I still say Rothchilds a lizard.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.