NSLog();

7 Comments »

7 Responses to "Conspiracy Theorists"

1. | Reply David
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 10:47am #
   

   OK, now why is this all incorrect?

   You are alleging that it is just a crappy conspiracy theory, right? The site makes a number of claims -- some of which seems to be pretty sensible -- but there are no counterclaims. You didn't leave any reason why their claims are just crappy conspiracy.

   At the risk of being called guilable... I would readily ask you or anyone else why this is all just bunk.

2. | Reply David
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 10:49am #
   

   *gullible

   I guess I need a preivew button too.

3. | Reply Mark Davis
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 11:45am #
   

   Great video, are you going to explain why this is a crappy theory Erik?

4. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 12:03pm #
   

   People, c'mon. Go read the volumes of information available on this. Ask yourself a few simple questions, like "which plane was flight 77, and if it did not crash, where did it go?" or "what incentive would there be for every media source to cover up the issue." Then go look at this or this (and several other sites out there).

5. | Reply iRideSnow
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 2:43pm #
   

   I agree with Erik on this. It's all well and good for someone to raise questions about the whereabouts of videos and whatnot, albeit in an overly sensationalistic way, in my opinion. But if they're going to suggest that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon, then the burden of proof is on them to explain what *did* happen to that particular 757, not to mention the people on board. Are they claiming those people never existed? That the relatives are actors? That it crashed somewhere else unnoticed? Oh wait, maybe it disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle!

   And what's the motivation behind the supposed cover-up? I mean, we KNOW that two planes did hit the towers. And we KNOW that a plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Hmmm, three planes confirmed to be hijacked and crashed on the same day. Is it so unbelievable that there was a fourth and it was crashed into the Pentagon? Or was the government thinking, "Oh wow! We've got these three planes that crashed. Now's the perfect time to implement our plan to send a missle into our own Pentagon!" Give me a break.

6. | Reply Jeff
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 2:53pm #
   

   At speed, and with highly combustible jet fuel, the airplane would pretty much disintigrate on impact. That's why nothing is left but rubble.

   A high explosive missile would have done a lot more damage. I see no craters, no parts of the Pentagon blown to pieces and thrown in a radius pattern.

   As for the FBI confiscating tapes, there are many reasons to do that, though one is to cover up evidence they don't want you to see, it may not be because the government itself has something to hide.

   This "conspiracy theory" raises doubts, and that's fine, but there's far too many facts to accept it as an alternative to a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

7. | Reply Steve Streza
   Posted 27 Sep 2004 at 3:28pm #
   

   This isn't the first time this has been brought up. Here, here, and here.

   The problem is that the theory does raise some questions, and there isn't really enough evidence to prove it either way. I think it's a possibility, but I would be horrified to learn that this was actually a conspiracy.