Spin-off thread: Your Favorite Conspiracy Theories

Well reasoned Red BTW the section of the Pentagon the plane hit had just been renovated and walls had Kevlar shielding and the whole section had been strengthened. Because it hit there lives were saved that wouldn't have been otherwise.

 

They were 757's and 767's, not 747's and the pilots had gone to flight schools. Not crop duster flight schools. Commercial pilot flight schools. Who knows why they turned around. Maybe they were about to chicken out and then decided to go through with it. Turning is easier than landing. They didn't learn how to land but they must have learned how to turn.

 

I must have been the illuminati. Their motives are mysterious.

 

Beats me, I didn't offer any answers just questions.

 

That is all conspiracy theorists ever do. They only offer questions because the vast majority of people simply don't know about operating a plane. So the conspiracy theorist prays on that fact.

It is hard to pilot a large plain. doesn't it seem strange that some arabian guy could hit a target? How could they possibly do that? Must have been an inside job?

 

The controls and instruments of a 757 are very similar to the controls and instruments on a camel.

 

I never said I believe any of it, just figured the people on this board that know everything would offer an answer.

 

Ok so that flight path, why do a circle around the entire building just to hit the side they passed, why not run into the west side first? Why not run into the east side after they passed it, and didn't the plane turn around in Kentucky or something?

 

So if it is a wash why keep bringing it up as damning of the film? It has no value to the authenticity of the film.

If the original film was spliced it would be evident in the first generation copy. There is no proof of splicing, only an allegation.

It is an amateur sleuth's timeline that is based on his undocumented timeline. What is his source for the timeline he constructed? One is never named. His whole objection is that Patterson and Gimlin could not have gotten the film over 40 kilometers of back trails in the time frame they gave. The only problem is they only had to cover a few kilometers of backwoods trails before they got to paved roads. They had to cover 20 some odd miles all but a fraction of which was paved roads, in about 10 hours. Not exactly hard riding.

The timeline about the flight is also completely fabricated. No claim was ever made that they flew the film out of Bluff Creek that day.

You are ignoring the context of the quote. That is what he thought before he analyzed the film. His mind was changed after he looked at it. But as per you style, you focus on the wrong part of the quote, and ignore the context.

This may be a fair point. My source is Krantz, who asserted that journals would not even consider his work for review. According to him he never got a formal rejection, just a blacklist on the subject. I am not sure why a prominent scientist would make those claims if they weren't true though.

Thousands of tracks over hundreds of thousands of square miles would are the evidence.

The Africans had been telling the Europeans of the hairy men in the Virunga since the 1700s. It was dismissed. The fact is there have been no scientific expeditions into the areas where Bigfoot is reported.