Ok, im posting this against the advice of others. We (myself, metal attack, heretic etc) can see this thread turning into a huuuge discussion debate. But in all honesty, i think its something that will make you ask yourself ALOT of questions.
Now sit back and watch this shockwave presentation, preferrably with sound. Allow your mind to consider all possibilities and do not try and solve anything until after you have finished watching.
Apparently this is at the heart of alot of debate since the 9/11 attacks in America and personally, i have never even considered this aspect of it, since it first happened.
Anyway...on with the show. Sit back and prepare to be blown away (no pun intended).
just a thought, on TV there was a lady talking "in america" about her husband being the pilot which crashed into the pentagon she was talking at the "Bush presedency talk" how ghey is she.
Quote from Milenko: i have never even considered this aspect of it, since it first happened.
i dare say that that is exactly what big brother wanted you to do.
For years there has been hype about the world trade center buildings but rarely a mention of the pentagon attack, almost like they dont want people to be thinking about it.
I can't watch the file, I'm guessing it says the attacks were some kind of conspiracy? Moon landing & martians alfoil hat stuff?
Conspiracies make very little sense in almost all cases. If you're engineering fake attacks, why only a few? Why not a lot? Successively or in parallel? Planning to form a military dictatorship? Hit congress and the supreme court too! Blow up a tank base to get the army hopping.
Sorry, no dice. Apply Occam's Razor to the evidence. The "wackjob terrorists" theory is much simpler to test, prove and explain than the "vast evil conspiracy involving martians" thing.
Watched it, and it is compelling evidence - until you do a google search and see that there are possible explanations given - two sides to every story.
I tend to switch off when I hear about conspiracy theories - just call me ostrich ;-)
Ostrich make a flash about the other side of the story. Wouldn’t mind watching that either.
Don't know how to make flashies - I'm a hardware boff, not a software one.
It was just interesting to see what the other side of the fence have to say - not saying that one side or the other are right; they both raise some interesting points.
That's why I bury my head - too hard to decide for myself who's right, and who's psycho, and seeing as it doesn't affect me, I become - ostrich.
I personally believe that the plane in question never hit the Pentagon, and have believed this since September 11th. While watching the news I asked some of these same questions... Following my concern, I read close 150 pages of conspiracy theory type propoganda regarding the impact from all over the internet, which backed up the doubt that the plane ever hit the Pentagon.
I was always very skeptical about the whiole aircraft into the Pentagon thing.....It was quite obvious whatever hit it was nothing the size of a commercial jet.
IMO it was a coverup...for what I have no idea, but there is definately some dodgy shit going on.
I'm guessing the "wasn't hit by a jumbo" thing is meant to mean there should have been more damage?
1. The pentagon, by floor space, is still one of the world's largest office buildings. It's huge. Any strike will look "small" compared to a building that covers 29 acres of land. There are around 25,000 employees working in the building every single day. Imagine the whole of Darwin's CBD in a single building, and you'll begin to get some idea of how positively huge the pentagon actually is, compared to even a jumbo jet.
To put it another way, the wingspan of a 747, the largest possible civilian plane that could have hit the pentagon, is approximately 60m. In contrast, each side of the Pentagon is around 320m long: more than five times a 747 wingspan. The 767 (I understand it was a 767 that hit the Pentagon) has a winspan of around 50m, just 1/6th the length of one side of the Pentagon.
2. The pentagon also happens to be designed to resist fully-laden crashing planes. It's a war building, remember? What's something the Japanese did in WW2, when the Pentagon was built? That's right! They crashed planes into things. The Americans built this into the Pentagon's engineering, and as a building it has been upgraded several times since being built, to account for the increasing size of aeroplanes in service.
Compare the World Trade Centre. The WTC is much, much smaller than the Pentagon in groundplane cross section, because it is a sky-scraper. Furthermore, the WTC was not engineered to withstand a direct hit from a 767 (although they gave design consideration to 707s, which are considerably smaller). To build buildings that tall, you need to give up a lot of shear strength. In contrast, the Pentagon is squat and can be, and definitely was, built for shear strength.
So if the beginning point of the conspiracy theory is "it looks like too little damage was done", sorry, bzzzt, doesn't hold up to the facts. Next.
LOL watch the damn thing first El Pres before you spout off :)
Jumbo's leave perfectly symetrical (sp) holes thru multiple layers of a building but yet pictures taken MINUTES after the explosion show NO wreckage. NOTHING! :)
Seriously man watch it before posting further on this thread, you looking silly because you aren't in possession of the information contained :)
And all the info you just sprouted, where did that come from LOL.
Coco, I've admitted multiple times that I'm only getting part of the picture here. If anyone feels like laying this conspiracy theory out, I'll go on that basis.
As for the "pictures taken minutes after", would this be the same photographer who finds Elvis in the supermarket? How do you know that the photos you're looking at haven't be doctored? Photoshopped? Faked? Taken 6 months earlier?
El Presidente, I suggest you don't post again until you've got a better bearing on what we're talking about.
I know the pictures displayed haven't been doctored, faked, or taken once the plane had been cleaned up because I was watching 4 news channels for almost 2 days straight, from less than 20 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC, and they're the same images I saw, live.
El Pres, the hole looked relatively small even with rescue workers and government officials trotting around just outside of the opening itself. This was definately not a jumbo.
If this was a plane crash, and the Pentagon is so tough against such attacks, how did this explosion plow through so many layer of wall?
If the plane crashed in as far as the holes through many layers of sections indicate, then the wings would have caused damage too, there was none visable.
Something this flash didn't mention was the angle of the entry and exit holes. It was clear, while watching the broadcasts on TV that the entry and exit are not in a straight line, if the plane entered at the angle they suggest. Sure, the plane could have snapped during impact, but if it snapped there would not have been enough weight and momentum to put the nose out the other end, as it would have appeared. Articles and reports backed up my theory.
Workers themselves who arrived on the scene minutes after it happening claim they saw no aircraft debris. I don't know of any team of men or machinery can clean up a jumbo jet-hit building wreck within 10-15 minutes, which is how long it took the media to arrive, approximately.
Those are just some of the things I noticed during coverage, which had me skeptical from the word go.
Yep, had a look at it. I could almost hear Michael Moore's voice and nice spooky soundtrack. It was super stuff.
I should probably do something more productive, but I'm bored. And also amazed that anyone can take at face value a conspiracy theory fostered - of all places! - on the internet.
So I went poking around at some of the claims.
Apparently there are widely conflicting eyewitness reports. Some people say the plane was big, some small. What's clear though is that (as I noted above) the Pentagon is huge, compared to a 757 (which has a wingspan of less than 50 meters).
What's also clear is that engineers and physicists have compared the kinetic energy of a very slowly approaching 757 with the structural resistance of the Pentagon, and the numbers line up quite nicely. The American Society of Civil Engineers actually wrote an entire book about it, you can buy it here: http://www.asce.org/bookstore/book.cfm?book=4241. Interestingly, they ASCE seems to think that the numbers stack up nicely.
There's also quite a few sites of a similar nature around, answering various points of the conspiracy theory "on the numbers" (which can be judged independently of motive). You can find a good list of them here: http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm.
Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that the USA attacked its own military HQ with a cruise missile in order to advance some unknown agenda is just such a claim. Disputed photographs and a one-sided presentation of anecdotal accounts (for there are many and they vary widely), is not extraordinary evidence. It is in fact subpar, the sort of thing that gets people laughed out of conferences of scientists and people stripped of their engineering qualifications.
So recap my earlier point: Occam's razor suggests that the mainstream theory, which is simple and consistent with the WTC attacks, is more likely to be true than the conspiracy theory, which requires a lot of collusion and hand-waving physics.
How about, oh, I dunno, the remains of 64 people who were on the flight? Of which, most have been subsequently identified through dental records and DNA sampling? How does fit with the conspiracy theory? It doesn't.
No wreckage on site? Really? Funny that: http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8
I did what you guys asked, I looked at this flash presentation. Now it's your turn. Look at the sites tearing the nutso theory apart on pure evidence. I won't hold you to anything you've said so far: people make mistakes when they want to believe somethings (such as, the USA sucks and is evil).
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and simply post some links for you to consider for yourself.
This does not mean that I am trying to debunk the whole conspiracy theory - my point is to simply say that there are always two sides to every story, and it is wise to search out what both sides have to say before making judgement.
I personally believe that somewhere in between both sides of the fence lies the truth - but don't just accept one side of the story at face value before seeing if there are answers to the obvious questions - where are the wings, etc...
There are many more examples that google will throw up, but for me, these answer my questions, and as I've said, somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
Exactly and as our original posts suggested it is definately thought provoking.
We not saying we believe it. It raises a lot of questions.
Occam's Razor - I thought your explanation was a bit too specific.
The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
So ok, we are told a plane has hit a building, we look for wreckage of plane, we see none. How is that making unnecessary assumptions, the mountains of sealed and unreleased evidence and tapes should be enough to assume...using Occams Razor that the govt has something to hide.
Huh? There was wreckage from the plane. There were bodies, there was luggage. There were massy components. Both blackboxes, contrary to rumour, were released (correction: found).
And if nothing else, if a 757 takes off, and disappears, where did it go? It never landed? It was taken by the aliens, who were in cahoots?
As to stuff not being released. Maybe it proves the official line, and FBI officials have better things to do, like catch criminals?
So to reapply Occam's razor:
Mainstream theory assumptions:
There are terrorists. They hijacked a plane. They flew it into the Pentagon.
Conspiracy theory assumptions:
There are terrorists. There are also conspirators. The 757 went ... somewhere ... but not into the Pentagon. Instead, a completely separate plane or missile hit the Pentagon. ... and the bodies, luggage, debris, black box and pieces of surviving fuselage were added later. By the CIA, or something. Oh! And there was a massive coverup.
If you look at the video footage, taken by the Pentagons own security camera's, there is no wreckage on their lawns. In fact, there is no wreckage on their lawns, even while they are fighting the fires.
The biggest things that get me are tehse: 1. ) a 747 Jumbo Jet would caus a MASSIVE area of debris, regardless of where on the pentagon it hit. 2. ) The precise section of the Pentagon that was struck, was conveniantly being rennovated and was days away from completion. What were they rennovating? They were applying a new form of structural reinforcing, specifically designed to stop metal and mortar from fragmenting, causing large scale damage. Conveniant timing? Or cover-up story? 3. ) as OD said, if this is a cover up, where in the **** did that 747 go? 4. ) Any information given by the government, re dna sampling and bodies cannot be taken at face value, especially if they want to hide something 5. ) The whitehouse lawn was spotless. No digs in the lawn. A 747 jumbo jet doesnt hit the side of a ground level building without skidding first. If it managed to miss the ground, the fuselage would have to be a few feet from the ground, meaning that debris would have gone OVER the top of the pentagon, into the inner rings, which is not visible from any photograph, post event. 6. ) These events happened after the WTC. USAF fighter jets WERE scrambled over the whitehouse and Pentagon. They had permission to shoot down any aircraft that posed a threat. It is a theory and one im willing to accept, that USAF's fighters shot at and hit the 747, bringing it down in an undisclosed location, however a mis-guided missle has struck the pentagon by error.
Im a believe that this is a cover-up, or there is a larger story here. Something just doesnt feel right about this. The Pentagon's own footage shows an aircraft in the first frame. That was a time lapse of 5 seconds. Im sorry but you cant make a jumbo jet disappear in 5 seconds, crashing into a building or not. Where are the wings of the aircraft? If the jet had hit the pentagon as they say it did, the wings would have shorn off. Yes they would have suffered major damage, but they would not have disintergrated into nothingness.
Make up your own minds i guess, i've made up mine.
El Presidente, you're looking past clear, clear video and photo evidence. The hole is not the size of a jumbo. There was no plane on the lawn of the Pentagon. A jumbo jet does not explode into thousands of pieces the size of a desktop PC, there are always huge, huge parts of the shell left.
El Prez is winning atm imo. This is all very interesting but can people stop saying that the effects of a plane running into a building would be. No one here (to my knowledge) is a physicist (sp!?). So no one is able to claim what a plane would or wouldn't do if it ran into the pentagon.
1) It wasn't a 747, it was a 757, which is almost half the size of a seven-four. It did cause damage, internally. In all other respects the building did what it was meant to, which was to cop bang like a reinforced concrete bitch.
2) Convenience is just that. It proves nothing. It's "convenient" that you're posting this, for if it was true, George Bush would lose his election. Clearly you're a French spy or something. Because it's just too convenient.
3) This is 1) again. Same answer: it went into the building. Look at the simulations that have been done subsequently, they line up closely with actual damage. Look at the diagrams of internal damage done by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I mean, heck, planes flew into the twin towers, why does nobody ask where they went?
4) This is rich. There's a conspiracy, yet hundreds of forensics experts are in on it? Meanwhile a bunch of cranks on the internet post a theory, we're supposed to take it at face value?
5) It didn't hit at the ground floor. It hit between the first and second floors. The 757 never touched the ground. And as for your credentials in debris splatter theory, I call bull. You don't know the first thing about it. Neither do I, and neither do the conspiracy theorists. The experts, both US Gov't and independently, who do know this stuff, agree that the plane's mass and energy were pushed into the building, for three rings.
6) An AMRAAM missile, which is the largest missile that an F16 can fire, has a 25kg high-explosive/fragmentation warhead. Such things don't blast through hundreds of tons of reinforced concrete, I don't care what you saw on Topgun.
rec, you know squat about the physics. No, really, you don't. You're ignoring alternative photos that clearly show debris on the lawn. You're ignoring the links with physicists and engineers agreeing that the mainstream theory holds water. Your authority, so far as these things go, is nil.
http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/b-pelouse_pentagon.jpg No plane or plane debris there.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pent_before1.jpg or there
In fact, the ONLY image that shows plane debris, is the one you posted. There's no plane sticking out of the building, no burnt out shell resting anywhere. No wings, no damage where the wings would have hit.
My point stands...
Quote from rec: What, ONE alternative photo, with ONE piece of plane debris?
Oh, and on the "neat hole" thing on the inner ring, I see on snopes.com an Army press release explaining that an engine made the hole. It's the right size and shape.
Eh? Cricket balls and 757s are similar now? We can scale the numbers and it's all the same? Is this why if I fall off a bike, I die instantly, just as happens in a high speed frontal crash with a 3 ton truck?
Quote from El Presidente: 1) It wasn't a 747, it was a 757, which is almost half the size of a seven-four. It did cause damage, internally. In all other respects the building did what it was meant to, which was to cop bang like a reinforced concrete bitch.
I know, it was a constant typo, i was thinking faster than i could type.
Quote:
2) Convenience is just that. It proves nothing. It's "convenient" that you're posting this, for if it was true, George Bush would lose his election. Clearly you're a French spy or something. Because it's just too convenient.
And G.W telling me what happened, proves nothing either.
Quote:
3) This is 1) again. Same answer: it went into the building. Look at the simulations that have been done subsequently, they line up closely with actual damage. Look at the diagrams of internal damage done by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I mean, heck, planes flew into the twin towers, why does nobody ask where they went? Because they saw wreckage and perhaps caus they actually saw an aircraft hit the tower.
Quote:
4) This is rich. There's a conspiracy, yet hundreds of forensics experts are in on it? Meanwhile a bunch of cranks on the internet post a theory, we're supposed to take it at face value? Of course not, but i like to think of other possibilities, rather than accepting to eat the spoon-fed bullshit that governments like to feed us.
Quote:
5) It didn't hit at the ground floor. It hit between the first and second floors. The 757 never touched the ground. And as for your credentials in debris splatter theory, I call bull. You don't know the first thing about it. Neither do I, and neither do the conspiracy theorists. The experts, both US Gov't and independently, who do know this stuff, agree that the plane's mass and energy were pushed into the building, for three rings. Which brings us back to the pilot. As the people who worked with and trained the pilots commented, they were incompetent. I would imagine it would take an extremely large amount of skill to fly a plane that size, 2 - 10 feet off the ground. Never said i was a 'debris splatter theorist', but can you honestly sit there and tell me that you would expect an entire plane to be disolved into nothing, by merely hitting the walls of the pentagon?
Quote:
6) An AMRAAM missile, which is the largest missile that an F16 can fire, has a 25kg high-explosive/fragmentation warhead. Such things don't blast through hundreds of tons of reinforced concrete, I don't care what you saw on Topgun. This is at theory that i read, and im willing to accept it. Not that in its entirety. So YOU'VE all of a sudden become a weapons expert. And you call bull on me for suggesting the possibility of a rogue missile. So your saying that fighter jets cannot be adapted to carry different payloads etc? I beg to differ.
Consider for a moment the possibility of a missle that WAS launched from a fighter jet. Consider the possibility of small fighter flying under rader, using a larger tactical missile. Could explain all the eye witness sitings of a small jet flying over their heads.
If the Pentagon, of all places, was to be struck by a foreign missile, could you imagine the chaos that would ensue throughout the American society and public structure? Their sense of invulnerability completely destroyed. Lets cover it up, make it look like it was a jet and then go looking for 'weapons of mass destruction' aka Long range tactical missiles.
Quote from El Presidente: Oh, and on the "neat hole" thing on the inner ring, I see on snopes.com an Army press release explaining that an engine made the hole. It's the right size and shape. and in the location/direction the nose cone would have gone. The engines are about 10 feet either side, if not more. And if the building can stop and absorb an entire jet, why cant it at least stop an engine. Why didnt the other engine have a similar effect.
As the the wings/engines, this is from the site I just posted.
Quote: 5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
AMERICANS LIED, YES, LIED TO THE WORLD ABOUT IRAQ. COLIN POWELL STOOD IN THE UN AND LIED TO THE WORLD. THE ADMINISTRATION POPULATED BY HAWK'S PERPETUATED THIS.
The US(sorry Bush) invaded(and occupied) iraq to change the political landscape in the middle east. ITS THAT SIMPLE.
The us defamed Hans Blix until un inspecters where forced out of iraq(who kept saying no evidence whatsoever). America blatantly LIES and says iraq has wmd NOW, and we need to invade NOW, or were all gonna get nuked or gassed.
So why wouldn't they be lying now?????????????????
Quote from uber tard: Evidence plz Frenzy. Rec stop throwing around petty insults because he's proven just about all your points wrong.
Watch SBS, and why don't you listen to first hand accounts from the likes of Hans Blix HIMSELF!!!!and CIA operatives, us politcal delegates.
Blix was very open about his treatment from the US, what they did, the BLATANT lies they spewed. Not only his account, but people who were in the administration at the time. Basically all high ranking ppl and advisors. Hell even GW Bush's speechwriters were interviewed.
EDIT-oh the best bit was from a very high up US politicain, who absolutely GAVE it to the curent administration in what must have been a parliament time like equivalent. He was talking to the vast crowd of top tier politicians. You really had to be there.
the plane (which wasnt a 747 and might explain why you all think the hole should have been so huge) was going at 530km/h, just like your precious little video stated, so I don't see you refuting it...most plane crashes are trying to make emergency landings and hence SLOW DOWN so they're going no where near that fast and hence, while still getting ****ed up, there were big chunks left. Through and orange at a wall and watch how much is left. Throw an orange at a wall at 500km/h and see how much is left (You like using throwing stuff at other stuff as analogys, so I thought I would do it too)... Back to near the start though you said Quote: We not saying we believe it. It raises a lot of questions. Bull-****ing-shit! You say you believe it all the freaking time
Quote: And I suppose you are an authority on it? Idiot. He quite clearly says he is not an expert on the matter although it would appear that you seem to think that you are...and yet you have the audacity to call him an idiot?
Quote: El pres is winning???..we SAW the effect of 2 planes slamming into the WTC
The damage to the pentagon, not even remotely similar in shape/form/splash damage/impact crator, its not remotely similar. Oh dear god....how old are you!?
One is an office bulding with glass windows for walls...albeit pretty strong glass I'd say...you could probably shoot through it though i'd say, office buildings arent made to be bullet proof...Lets see you shoot a hole in the pentagon's walls...it is made for being attacked you dickwad as it is a military target.
BAH! YOU'RE ALL TINFOIL HAT WEARNG FREAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from uber tard: I was talking about the pentagon thing.
My first post basically states that the US lied, so hell anything said by the current administration could also be a lie.
Saying a plane crashed into the pentagon COULD be a lie.
The guy they hired to find out if Iraq was buying nuclear material in Africa basically said it wasnt happening and that iraq probably couldnt even aquire it if they wanted(yellowcake i think). All this was in his report.
CUT TO GW SPEECH "We have evidence that Iraq is purchasing nuclear material from Africa."
And yes, the guy was dumbfounded.
I think it was called the "world according to bush"(the documentary-SBS) maybe. Anyway it's full of FIRSTHAND account's by very senior people with direct involvement, but hey i know rumor and heresay is always gonna be more believed than firsthand.
PS. America's propaganda war against iraq(this whole wmd stuff, gearing a nation to PRE EMTIVELY ATTACK(and occupy) A NATION THAT IS NO THREAT), is considered strikingly similar(by very senior people-not me) to Nazi propaganda machinations.
ok, i kinda skipped pages 3 and 4, posts got way too long. But my theory is kinda supported by this here from http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html
Quote: How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of the Pentagon? The answer is that the plane did damage the rest of the building, it just didn't cause it to collapse. The plane hit at a 45% angle to the face of the building. An impact hole was clearly made (reference the web site photos), and the aircraft and wreckage continued some 240' through the rings of the building coming to rest in A&E Drive. The engines were buried inside the building and they took many of the support columns out that resulted in the eventual collapse of the E-Ring (in conjunction with the fires). The entirety of the E, D, & C rings were demolished as a result of the blast effect from the plane.
Basically, not to sound cliche - but the one picture of plane debris and a few more of what could be plane parts still don't prove that it was a 767. And El Pres, you're contradicting yourself by saying that a 767 is half the size of a 747 when you stated yourself the difference of 10m in wing span. I've always doubted the intentions of most super power governments, and not because of Michael Moore or other non-official investigative people.
Another thing that i think needs to be reckoned with is what about plane #4? what sucks about media and the world in general is that if that plane had've hit Washington - or wherever it was bound, whether we like it or not more people would've have known/talked about it and the 4th plane would've become inadvertently infamous. But, it crashed into woods - and no-one spoke about it to the extent it deservered. I dunno, that jus kinda gets me i guess... I think their's just way too many theories/opinions/witnesses to this and someone outside of the US Government needs to conduct an unbiased investigation into what really happened, and this includes the footage from the servo and hotel. If the US Gov has nothing to hide, why not release this footage?
Quote: And El Pres, you're contradicting yourself by saying that a 767 is half the size of a 747 when you stated yourself the difference of 10m in wing span.
I know I shouldn't get in the pool after drying off, but a quick mini-point. I said that the 757, not a 767, was around half the size of a 747: its wing span is about 40m vs 60m, and it weighs 115 tonne at takeoff, vs 330t for the 747. So, as I say, it's approximately half the size in terms of hand-waving debating points (which seems to be the common currency around here).
the plane (which wasnt a 747 and might explain why you all think the hole should have been so huge) was going at 530km/h, just like your precious little video stated, so I don't see you refuting it...most plane crashes are trying to make emergency landings and hence SLOW DOWN so they're going no where near that fast and hence, while still getting ****ed up, there were big chunks left. Through and orange at a wall and watch how much is left. Throw an orange at a wall at 500km/h and see how much is left (You like using throwing stuff at other stuff as analogys, so I thought I would do it too)...
We talking about a 65,000 pound Commercial Air-liner, vs a two story wall. Not a ****ing orange vs the side of your house. Get a grip.
Another dodgy analogy. Throw an Orange at your wall at 530km ( Max Speed ) Throw and Orange at your wall at say 200km (slower speed)
Thats still one ****ed up orange :) and probably a dented wall.
Another thing i find strange, which ruins the above analogy completely is.
If it was a plane, it hit hard.
Hard enough to break through several of the pentagons layers, look at the photos from El Pres, it shows it clearly. But NO sign of impact from the wings...at all...remember it WAS going fast to destroy several layers of the pentagon, it didnt just drop.
And you say they broke off, disintegrated, got melted inthe fire ok.
I saw WTC, as it happened at 2am right after the first plane hit, Channel 8 had it before anyone in Darwin with a CNN feed. When that plane slammed into the building the wings cut like a knife through butter. The plane disappeared into the building leaving in imprint, wings and all before exploding.
I just find it hard to belive no mark. That perhaps is my main sticking point the rest can be possibly explained. But why not release the footage or the black box.?
LOL reload, you think the WTC were 'ordinary' office buildings??? It's been bombed before man or are YOU to young to remember that. The building should NOT have collapsed the engineer reports can only point to the fact that the intense flames from the jet fuel MELTED the steel and TITANIUM friggin core.
My point was that it had glass windows which are significantly different from kevlar reinforced concrete walls. You could drive a car at 40km/h and still go through one of the WTC's glass windows...
Yeah but on the other hand a bullet can go through it too, so it's still a balance. Point being, a ****load of speed and mass would be required to punch a hole that big in the pentagon. Not much else other than a plane coulda done it. A missile woulda ****ed all kinds of shit up, including the lawn
Guys, crikey, surely you all dont take for gospel what you see on the net. Doesnt take much to get some pictures and some fabled conspiracy to glue it all together, pop it on the web and say...look and believe.
I did look at the site and feel compelled to comment.
Even though a 757 and a 767 appear to be very simillar, in fact, you can get a common endoresement that would allow you to fly both with a conversion course, they are however very different. The 757 is alot smaller than a 767. A 767 is a widebody, 757 is alot more narrow. Just as long but more skinny tube.
The faster an aircraft goes doesnt neccesarily mean more damage to an object it hits, it has more affect on how much of the AIRCRAFT will be left. The pentagon is as mentioned a FORTRESS...lots of reinforced concrete. The 757 basically a long aluminium can. With design in the aluminium tubing providing the strength of the aircraft and not the bulk of material providing the streght. WHat i mean is that take an aluminum can, and you can crush it quite easily, however, try it with a thick steel can and you will hurt your foot.
So in reality, the airframe has quite a small relative mass, strength provided in structure, however the engines have alot of mass and are very dense.
Concrete wall - aluminium Can.......airplane hits concrete wall, disentigrates to thousands of peices, prolly fine enough to be burnt, tails and main load bearing structures contain heavier metals and alloys like magnesium, which BURN when at high temps. Not as much aluminium would would be left to form much remaining structure at that speed. Main surving structures would be the engines exiting the building leaving those nice neat holes.
Besides that you have all the greiving people for the people on the flight, not to mention the crew, and I think it a lil disrepectfull that people belive this crap and say that these people did not die, nor did thier families loose thier loved ones.
The Captain http://www.legacy.com/LegacyTribute/Sept11.asp?Page=TributeStory&PersonID=91723 http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm
The first Officer http://www.prayersforpeace.org/people/memory141.shtml http://www.fact-index.com/d/da/david_charlebois.html (interesting background - friend of yours perhaps ph3n)
Even though he stands against the crowd, doesnt mean he is wrong...go El Pressie. You people with sheep mentality LOL
Ahh, but a plane would ****ed up the lawn too ;) Velocity is what punched through the wall. Any bunker buster could have done that to the pentagon, **** those things drive through rock. Its still a reinforced wall, its not invulnerable, although i will admit its pretty damn strong :)
I still cant get over the fact that the 'jet' hit the part of the building..the 1/5th of the building, that had recently had structural reinforcing. Thats just fart too coincidental for my liking.
I havent seen the local surroundings of the pentagon, but it may be that the part that was hit may have had the clearest approach to provide the greatest damage
When looking for pictures on the net regarding plane remains after crashes, look for accidents that refer to Controlled flight into Terrain (CFIT)....usually accidents that had high speed on impact, and see just how much is left. Usally not much other than engines and undercarriage, especially after a fire
Yes of the opinion that a fair bit of the aircraft would have disintegrated. The Airframe would not have penetrated very far as it has a relatively low mass to surface area ratio, however the engines would have penetrated a reasonable way, causing the observed, clean holes.
As above, things like engines and undercariage have a fair chance of remaining
There is a difference to having an open mind, and and mmm, cant quite explain what this is.
I'm with El Pres on this one. The conspiracy theory really is an extraordinary claim, and there isn't the extraordinary evidence to back it up.
Why is the hole small? 1) It was a 757, not a 747 2) The pentagon is reinforced concrete, a 757 passenger jet is mostly comprised of thin crinkly aluminium. A few parts such as landing gear, engines, etc have the potential to do alot of damage, but the rest is not structurally that strong.
Where are the wings?
Maybe they're inside the first layer of the Pentagon. Just a guess.
Quote from rec: Not structurally strong? Dude, it flies at 30,000 feet at 800km/h through storm clouds, wind pockets and some horrid turbulence.
I understand your point, but crinkly aluminium is down playing it a bit, I think.
Planes are notorious for being pretty rickety old things. Because it can fly at 800km/h doesn't mean it's strong - It's flexible, flying at 30,000 feet is easier than flying low - in terms of turbulence/air resistance.
While I consider myself pretty open minded and have read up on both sides of the story, I decided long ago that it was an Aircraft. I don't believe there was any cover-up regarding this issue.
Also, AFAIK the structural renovations weren't complete on that part of the pentagon.
This sounds similar to the arguments posed by those that didn't believe an aircraft could bring down the WTC towers... and people never considered the burning fuel scenario etc.
With regards to the wreckage... was there parts of the plane flying backwards when the planes hit the WTC ? No.. the plane continued, disintegrating as it did.
*sigh* Rec, you're a dick. You obviously disagree with what El Pres is saying - good for you, don't be ****ing little tart about it just because you are of an opposite, close minded viewpoint.
Bah I'm calling bs and shennanigans on that flash. It's like a media hyper-conspiracy theory. I haven't read the previous pages because I don't bother with shit-treading.
Most likely videos were confiscated asap, before they could be released to the media themselves at a price which quite often IS a problem.
That section was most probably reinforced because it was most likely considered to be vulnerable to attack, etc. Any engineer could tell you that is part of normal analysis.
The building is reinforced concrete. Aircraft grade aluminium, anyone who's taken basic materials engineeing will know it's light and strong because of shaped structure and design. Eggs are fairly strong, but crack the top and they'll just mush up even easier, smash the front of a Aluminium tube and it'll crack and the rest will shatter more or less. Not to mention the aircraft was pressurised. That being, along with a nice bit of aviation fuel, I'm not suprised that most of the aircraft would have just simply decintegrated on impact with the walls.
The engines are more or less giant behemoths of steel and stuff, they're a fair bit denser than the rest of the plane, now those definitely made those 'small' round holes.
Shear strength for steel is around ~2100MPa, yet aircraft Al T-7075 has a shear strength of around 154MPa. That's quite a difference, so imagine what would happen at intense heat, and stress.
Posted earlier by El Pres on the sites it states that the reason it went through mulitple layers was the engine correct?
Where are the engines on that plane?
And about the flash I did watch it with no music :) The plane did crash I belive and the poor souls did die, I just don't belive it was that plane that hit the pentagon.
And this post isn't about winning you retards its about having a discussion on this event and trying to find the most plausible explaination.
None of us will "win" until we see the govt footage, which they havent released.
That alone has to throw some doubts, they released the black box recordings of the other hijacked flights, just not this one.
Go then dood, your taking this a bit personally it seems.
Might be best for you, most of the ppl discussing/argueing with each other here have known each other for 5-10 years, so i'd like to think this has just been a rigorous discussion with mates that disagree.
You seem to take it personally that people don't see your side of view.
I may be wrong here but a large reason they say it went through mulitple layers of the pentagon was something to do with the engine, coming loose and careening thru etc.
Now i'm not expert on this model of plane....but aren't the engines on the wings?