after more serious consideration of the video, the evidence is very compelling. the "facts" don't add up. a 767 could not have crashed into the Pentagon-- i've always thought in the back of my mind that the damage did not represent the full disaster of a 767. additionally, there's video of the incident, but FBI grabbed it up before anybody could see it. Eyewitness accounts of them hearing something doesn't mean anything, because a plane or a missle flying at high speed directly over you would sound like a missle. and an explosion from either would sound like a bomb. I am very divided on this. I crave for a further understanding.
that's crazy and disturbing... but what happened to all those people who where on that Flight? If it was a different craft with different people, why hasn't anyone asked who those people where? I dunno, it's weird...
That's a good point Joey....I dunno either. I can't say that I believe it. It's just something to think about. I haven't really looked into what the government SAYS happened either. But the things that really stuck out to me about it were: the fact that, though the plane was flying so low over I-whatever highway, there was no jet wake (cool picture there, by the way) and also that there was no marking on the grass.....because the plane was so low, even if it didn't contact the grass, it should have seriously screwed it up. Those two things confuse me most.
Its interesting...but since I'm a very easily swayed person when it comes to stuff I don't know a horrble amount of information about I'm going to have to have doubts about it just for my own well being.
I think it does its job well, it was made(not a whole lot unlike whats-his-face's movie Feirinhight 911) for its viewers to belive it. It points out good evidence but how am I to know how legit it all is? I'd say that I don't not-believe it but how can belive it so much as to think it absolutely true? I dunno.
You're forgiven, lol. Very good point also, Kristi. I pointed that out (sorta) in my original post, about not knowing the legitimacy of all these quotes they come out with and stuff. And with Photoshop and other image editing software available, you really can't be sure about pictures anymore either. It's just crazy. They put it into a very deceptive type of format I think. With all the rhetorical questions, you would think this was a campaign ad or something, lol.
Yeah, I saw that video about a week ago, and I have to say that it raises some questions. I like the way they didn't go so far as to make it a government conspiracy or something like that. It just puts the info out there and leaves you to deal with the implications. I told Sarah to watch it, but she thinks I'm dumb. Therefore, she did not watch it.
Re: Interestingpaulbob37September 9 2004, 17:03:10 UTC
Yeah, I do agree that they put it out there so as not to TELL you straight up what they want to get across, but as in my reply to Kristi, I think that they used rhetorical questions in such a way that it forces you to obvious conclusions a lot of times. Which is a sort of propagandist way to go about it. But whatever.
And also...let me get this straight....you told Sarah to watch it, and then she all of the sudden decides you are retarded and by that same line of logic decides not to watch it? LMAO!
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think it does its job well, it was made(not a whole lot unlike whats-his-face's movie Feirinhight 911) for its viewers to belive it. It points out good evidence but how am I to know how legit it all is? I'd say that I don't not-believe it but how can belive it so much as to think it absolutely true? I dunno.
What did you think, Paul?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And also...let me get this straight....you told Sarah to watch it, and then she all of the sudden decides you are retarded and by that same line of logic decides not to watch it? LMAO!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment