9-11's Darkstar

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-08-06 06:14pm

Call Mulder....

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-08-06 06:17pm

Wow

That's all I can say...there are conspiracy theorists...then there are complete nuts.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-06 06:19pm

"Here's a tip: aluminum foil makes a lovely helmet, and blocks out the government's mind control rays."

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-06 06:43pm

I bet Darkstar creams his pants when he reads this.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-06 07:05pm

Actually, that page is a good case study in moronic conspiracy theory bullshit techniques. If you compare its basic rhetorical methods to those of moon-landing hoax people, it's virtually identical: ask why we don't see some symptom of airplane crashes which he just basically invented out of thin air and ignorance, and then declare that the absence of this symptom proves that there was no airplane crash.

Replace "symptom of airplane crash" with "characteristics of really being on the Moon" and you have every moon-landing hoax theory in the world. Better yet, replace "symptoms of airplane crash" with "what we should really see if evolution is true", and you have every creationist website in the world.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-06 07:10pm

I love this part.

A famous, but tattle-tale video, portrays a secret in plain sight in the second WTC strike. That video screams volumes. In the last seconds, the aircraft is banked by approximately 60 degrees – a 2 “G” turn. However, the video sequence shows something incredibly revealing – the nose is pulled upward, compensating for a loss of lift. The 60-degree bank also attests to the aircraft being manually flown, as the autopilot limit on its bank-angle control is approximately 30 degrees.

That maneuver is the mark of a skilled jet pilot! The pull on the control column would have been a professional reflex. At that point, who would care that the aircraft would hit in a descent? Only a professional jet pilot with ingrained reflexes!

LOL!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-06 07:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:"Here's a tip: aluminum foil makes a lovely helmet, and blocks out the government's mind control rays."

That's just government propaganda! Aluminum foil wont stop them, only drinking lead paint can protect you!

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-08-06 07:43pm

This guy needs some serious help, rehashing the old "Disappearing 757" on Pentagon, using lots of technical terms to "embelish" his theory, and generally crapping on logical analysis.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-08-06 07:54pm

Holy shit! This is one of the worst analyses of anything I've ever read. Note the blatant leaps in logic, the astonishing dismissal of evidence or alternative explanations, and the laughable attempt to claim that his interpretation of a smattering of photographs is accurate.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-08-06 10:28pm

His brilliant use of photoshop should also be noted.
His photos are horrible, his analysis asinine, and his brain damaged.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-08-06 10:48pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Holy shit! This is one of the worst analyses of anything I've ever read. Note the blatant leaps in logic, the astonishing dismissal of evidence or alternative explanations, and the laughable attempt to claim that his interpretation of a smattering of photographs is accurate.

Ossus, could you stop talking about RSA's website just this once and stay on topic?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-06 10:54pm

not to pander to the conspiracy theorists, but wouldnt the plane have left atleast SOME wing-damage? when the two planes hit the WTC, you could clearly see wind outlines in the buildings. but in the pentagon, theres nothing but a fuselage-sized hole. i understand that it hit the ground and all, but the wings would have cause SOME wide damage. And considering that the tanks are IN the wings, I think its a legitimate question to ask where the explosions went from that fuel, and why the damage is confined to a small narrow area not spanning the wing width.

i could almost believe that the explosion could be pushed off the building without blowing it in, but wasnt the plane supposed to be full of fuel, or was that just the WTC planes? i think a few thousand gallons of kerosene in the wings would cause more then just soot on the surface like this:

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-06 10:58pm

kojikun wrote:not to pander to the conspiracy theorists, but wouldnt the plane have left atleast SOME wing-damage? when the two planes hit the WTC, you could clearly see wind outlines in the buildings. but in the pentagon, theres nothing but a fuselage-sized hole. i understand that it hit the ground and all, but the wings would have cause SOME wide damage. And considering that the tanks are IN the wings, I think its a legitimate question to ask where the explosions went from that fuel, and why the damage is confined to a small narrow area not spanning the wing width.

Please propose an alternate theory which explains the situation better. Also explain what happened to the plane according to your alternate theory, since it was tracked going in. Did it vanish without a trace, only to be replaced by the imaginary missile?

You're missing the point, which is that you cannot make predictions based on ignorance (unless you've studied the physics of airplane crashes and the exact kinematics of this particular crash, you are just making stuff up with precious little information), nor can you use these predictions in order to disprove the only theory which presently makes any sense.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-06 11:06pm

kojikun wrote:not to pander to the conspiracy theorists, but wouldnt the plane have left atleast SOME wing-damage? when the two planes hit the WTC, you could clearly see wind outlines in the buildings. but in the pentagon, theres nothing but a fuselage-sized hole.

Not really. The Pentagon is a massive concrete building and airplanes aren't that tough. Slam a relatively light weight aluminum wing against a heavy, loadbearing concrete building and it's not going to do much damage.

The World Trade Center was not a massive building. In fact it was a curtain wall design which means that it has relatively few structural members. The wing hit mostly glass, not anything solid.

When you take more than a superficial look at this it's obvious that your observation is easily explained. No need for conspiracy theories, just a little bit of common sense.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-08-06 11:07pm

kojikun wrote:not to pander to the conspiracy theorists, but wouldnt the plane have left atleast SOME wing-damage? when the two planes hit the WTC, you could clearly see wind outlines in the buildings. but in the pentagon, theres nothing but a fuselage-sized hole. i understand that it hit the ground and all, but the wings would have cause SOME wide damage. And considering that the tanks are IN the wings, I think its a legitimate question to ask where the explosions went from that fuel, and why the damage is confined to a small narrow area not spanning the wing width.

The Pentagon is a hardened reinforced concrete building with blast resistant walls and windows, the WTC is not, it's a lightweight steel framed tower. Impact effects on the 2 vastly different building will obviously have different effects.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-06 11:49pm

okay that makes more sense. i knew there had to be some reason.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-08-08 09:09am

Holy conspiricy(sp) bullshit, Batman!

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-08-08 11:23am

I didn't find that conspiracy theory page to be as much Darkstar-esque as it was bizarre, inane and confusing.

It might have been stupid, but in an Art Bell kind of way, not in a Darkstar kind of way.

As for conspiracy theories - I've seen weirder.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-08-08 01:31pm

I love the way that the guy incessently changes the characterization of the terrorists to fit what point he wants to make at the time. For example, he repeatedly states that no pilot as poorly trained as the ones that were used could possibly have flown their planes that well (in particular, he declares the abilities of the pilot striking the Pentagon as being "impossible"), but as soon as he examines why the terrorist would decide to attack the side of the building instead of the roof, he changes his story and declares that "no terrorist sophisticated enough" to hijack aircraft and plan the attack would target the side of the building, as opposed to the roof. He switches between the two characterizations of the terrorists several times over the course of his website, which leads me to the question of whether the terrorists were competent or not.