Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Mon 20 February 2006 8:11 pm

What you "noticed" was that I reject totally your link and your assertion that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Pictures on a website can be photo-shopped. Why should the site you link to be more trustworthy then the many many people who saw the plane and the aftermath in the rubble and fire and dead bodies? I don't have to "figure" something out. It was a local happening here. Why should something be re-thought when the stories of the victims and survivors and rescuers were in the morning papers and in my own family?

Do you live in the D.C/Northern Virginia/Maryland area? Have you ever seen in person just how big the Pentagon building is? I do, I have, and my brother-in-law worked there. He is a reliable witness. You, as an anonymous poster of conspiracy theories, are not. Why should you be trusted? What are your bona fides? Why do you believe the claptrap on the conspiracy sites? Why should you trust them?

Ebor

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Mon 20 February 2006 8:30 pm

Exactly, Justin, the photos do look like something big hit the side of a building. Just to give some data on just how BIG the Pentagon is:

"Each outside wall is 921 feet long." That's the length of each side of the outer most ring, the walls seen driving by:3 football fields plus a bit.

It's made of reinforced concrete, and the building is supported by 41,492 concrete piles. It is 77 feet 3 1/2 inches tall.

It is a Very Large Building
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html\

The wingspan of a 757 is 125 feet. So 921 feet of wall and 125 feet of wing, makes for about 1/7 the length of one side of the Pentagon.
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/air ... tspans.pdf

Following what Justin wrote, since there had never been such an occurance before, just how do the conspiracy fans know just what a building with that composition and those dimensions is supposed to look like when a plane hits it? I'll take the physical evidence over someones ideas that lack any testing or solid evidence.

Ebor

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Mon 20 February 2006 8:41 pm

"Careful"? or Conspiracy/paranoia driven? Just because someone does not come around to your suggestion does not mean that they are not "careful".

I recommend "American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center"
by William Langewiesche, taken from a series he wrote for The Atlanctic Monthly magazine in 2002. That looked at the construction and engineering of the WTC and why the towers fell.

Ebor

ICONOPHILI · Post by **ICONOPHILI** » Tue 21 February 2006 12:22 am

Justin Kissel wrote:
Um, first it does look like it was hit by something awfully big or powerful. Second, people sometimes fall 6 stories and get up and walk away, sometimes things don't happen the way we think they should; point being, the lawn doesn't look the way you think it should... so what? Many posts I read on Orthodox websites aren't what I expect; I don't blame it on some Evangelical conspiracy to make the Orthodox look like biblically illiterate people, or some some scholastic conspiracy to make us speak in terminology too high-falutin for our own good. Third, if it was some conspiracy, and they wanted to blame it on a plane, then why didn't they just have some people hijack a plane and crash it into the Pentagon? Why use a different method, and then have to cover things up, if they are so all powerful?

Yes there are so powerful they made all of us think what we're seeing/hearing is REAL: Part 1. http://www.hermes-press.com/econ1.htm Part 2. http://www.hermes-press.com/econ2.htm P.S. you have a westernised understanding on how Orthodox are to have a relationship with Government. Here's more about The Pentagon if you think those sites I posted were photoshoped: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

ICONOPHILI · Post by **ICONOPHILI** » Tue 21 February 2006 12:41 am

Ebor wrote:
Perhaps you do not understand what I wrote. The original 12 cartoons (as can be read about in the article written by the editor of the Danish news paper that published them) came out last Fall. It is only now, in the last month or so, that they have been brandished about to incite riots in various parts of the world. Who has been doing this? Various arabic papers and people, including parts of the Saudi government (read the links from Al-Hamedi's blog).

No one is saying that they weren't first published in a Danish newspaper. (What facts or documentation do you have to prove that it is a "Jew-owned" one, please? )

Have you read the article by Mr. Rose?

Ebor

Here some more info on your Rose charcter: http://judicial-inc.biz/Jewish_Cartoons ... t.htm#rose

CGW · Post by **CGW** » Tue 21 February 2006 1:27 pm

Careful study-- I take that back. Even the most superficial study shows me that you, Iconophili, are prepared to believe the most baseless speculation and groundless conjecture. The fact is, people who study airplane crashes are qualified to express an opinion here; the kind of people who make up these websites aren't. In the real world, ATC followed the path of the flight; dozens of commuters on the highway saw the plane fly in and crash. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that wreckage from the crash site had markings confirming it as belonging to the airplane in question.

And besides, the flight of the plane into the south tower of the WTC is simply beyond denial. Thousands of people saw it; it was caught on film from many angles. (As it turned out, the crash of the plane into the north tower was caught on film too.) People on some of the flights were able to call others on cell phones. The reason why people believe the official version of what happened is that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of it. The "it couldn't have"s from denying sites are not worthy of consideration-- not because they are unofficial, but because the people saying these things are picking at straws and expressing opinions they are no more qualified than I to express.

It is abundantly clear that the perpetrators of these crimes handed the Bush administration a major propaganda victory. It also seems clear that the hijackers didn't care about that.

Ebor · Post by **Ebor** » Tue 21 February 2006 5:04 pm

Mr. Rose is not my "Rose character". And why should the opinion of the site you provided (yes I read it. Do you read the sites I've provided links to?) be of any interest once it is clear that it is anther site that wants to promulgate conspiracy theories and hatred of other people.

The whole affair is a mess. But I'll take Mr. Rose's own words and those of moderate Muslims like at "The Religious Policeman" as closer to reality.

Ebor