posted
I hate conspiracy theories. I think they're junk. Ridiculous.
Or I thought rather. Then I saw a movie that made me think twice. The whole time I watched it I thought this is ridiculous, but the evidence still had merit. It's long. Some of you have almost certainly seen it.
posted
I don't really buy into conspiracy theories either. After a disaster, it's part of human psychology to blame authority figures. Oftentimes, I think, this is how such theories get started. I also thought several of their finer points were somewhat dubious.
That said, this video raised some VERY interesting questions for me. Mainly, the relatively small amount of damage to the pentagon, and the witness testimony concerning secondary explosions at the World Trade Centers.
If anyone with a chemistry/engineering background would be willing to weigh in on some of the technical issues raised, I'd be interested.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but it does raise interesting questions as others have mentioned. While I'm not a plane engineer by any means, I always thought planes of that size were built with mainly aluminum in order to keep the weight down. An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
The nitty gritty stuff is dubious, but again, very interesting.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After thinking about it further, I remember the news making references to "secondary explosions." In all the other things that happened after 9-11 it's easy to understand why people forgot about it, but now I'm curious, and can't seem to locate any websites that talk about it objectively (i.e. don't start hurling accusations of conspiracy around).
I guess the main aspect I didn't like the video is that they seem really REALLY desperate to lay the blame at Bush's doorstep, but they just don't have the evidence to back it up. I'm no fan of this administration, and Bush certainly did benefit from 9-11, but that's simply not good enough. Whether or not it's true, it damages the effectiveness of the movie to make that claim, implicitly or expressly, without the evidence to support it. I think it's the same failing that Farenheit 911 had. I liked that movie, and this one - dispite the awful narration - but we should all expect more evidence to back up such serious charges.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm seriously thinking of relocating to another country. Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Anyone suggest a good country to move to? (I am not joking around, I believe this video and several others like it and don't know what to do about it other than relocate)
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was this the same video that stated that a high rise building doesn't collapse because of a fire because it is reinforced with solid powerful steel? Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building? Because if it was, that was the points that got me...
But it might be a different video...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building? Because if it was, that was the points that got me...
Umm...sorry to rain on the conspiracty theorist's parade, but if the Pentagon really wasn't destroyed by a large Boeing 757, then what happened to Flight 77 ? I'm sure the relatives of those on the Flight certainly would like to know why the plane made a U-turn over West Virginia, set a new course for Arlington, VA, and then disappeared.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's what I wondered too... That seemed a bit far-fetched, but the building part was really interesting...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for posting before I've had a chance to watch the movie, but from just a quick google image search I would say that the Pentagon looks pretty damaged to me.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
There are numerous analyses of the WTC collapse out there.
quote:I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but it does raise interesting questions as others have mentioned. While I'm not a plane engineer by any means, I always thought planes of that size were built with mainly aluminum in order to keep the weight down. An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
100 tons at 350 MPH does a lot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the people with eyes to see and ears to hear...
quote: Umm...sorry to rain on the conspiracty theorist's parade, but if the Pentagon really wasn't destroyed by a large Boeing 757, then what happened to Flight 77 ?
Come on...seriously, come on.
The Pentagon -wasn't- destroyed, it was barely damaged. And if someone went to all the trouble of launching a missile at the Pentagon and confiscating all tapes of the event don't you think they would simply murder the passengers and destroy/sell off the plane?
Did you guys actually watch the vid?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Barely damaged? All 5 rings were damaged. The walls of the pentagon are MUCH stronger and harder to penetrate than the walls of the WTC were, and the plane went into all 5 rings. The roof of the inner rigns didn't collapse, but that doesn't mean anything. The dozens of stories (edit: above the crash site) of the WTC didn't collapse until the building came down.
I've seen that video many times.
This so-called proof relies on understating the damage a jet liner could do to the WTC and overstating what it could do to a rock building with 10 walls.
posted
Dag- Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon. Also the windows around the hole were intact after the plane hit. The cable spools in front of the building were undamaged. The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
Also think of this, the official story states that the high heat of the burning jet fuel weekened the steel and caused the towers to collapse. The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Also, why weren't there any bodies found at the crash site of Flight 93? Every other plane crash in history has included some form of human remains. However this time there were none. Also where is the debris from Flight 93? Again, no fuselage/cocpit/tail sections.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag- Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon. Also the windows around the hole were intact after the plane hit. The cable spools in front of the building were undamaged. The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
The snopes article already linked answers this.
quote:Also think of this, the official story states that the high heat of the burning jet fuel weekened the steel and caused the towers to collapse. The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Probably because it didn't end up in a pool of jetfuel? This isn't that hard to conceive of.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
EDIT: THe snopes rebuttal doesn't hold water. The hole on the exterior of the Pentagon was only 16ft wide. Skecthy enough for the fuselage, but for the fuselage and the wings? Not likely.
Also for the photagraphed piece of debris. That's the largest piece. The only one of that size. That doesn't compare to other plane crash debris.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, anyone who really thinks that an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon has been smoking some serious crack. First of all, I know people who work near the Pentagon who SAW the plane go in.
Secondly, assuming the existence of some powerful conspirator who has the means and desire to 1.) damage the Pentagon some other way, and 2.) to get rid of flight 77 and all its passengers, why bother with the deception? If you want to hit the Pentagon AND destroy the plane AND make people think the plane hit the Pentagon, isn't the easiest way to accomplish all three to FLY THE FREAKING PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is extremely difficult to fly a plain that weighs several hundred tons 2 feet off the ground if you're a poor pilot (which was the general consensus about Hani Hanjour). Also, the BBC and The Guardian both claim to have tracked down 9 of the accused hijackers.
(EDIT: Off topic, but Dag are you a Hoya?)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If anyone with a chemistry/engineering background would be willing to weigh in on some of the technical issues raised, I'd be interested.[/quotes]
Swarms and swarms and swarms of chemists, engineers, firefighters, forensic analysts, and experts of every conceivably relevant field have weighed in on every issue even hinted at in this "compelling" video.
Listen to Dagonee. Read the snopes link given. Don't jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon because the video designed to make you think you're so clever to have seen through this deception is doing anything but pandering to your ego. ------
Juxtapose,
[quote]Mainly, the relatively small amount of damage to the pentagon, and the witness testimony concerning secondary explosions at the World Trade Centers.
Your objection has been successfully overcome. First of all, the Pentagon was not an ordinary building. It was massively reinforced. Second, all five rings of the Pentagon were damaged.
Earendil,
quote:An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
Yes they do, if they're going very fast. I could throw a pebble at you and if it were going 300+mph, you might just end up dead.
Stone Wolf,
quote:Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Read Dagonee's link. It responds to every "point" made in this video.
quote:The Pentagon -wasn't- destroyed, it was barely damaged. And if someone went to all the trouble of launching a missile at the Pentagon and confiscating all tapes of the event don't you think they would simply murder the passengers and destroy/sell off the plane?
The Pentagon suffered massive damage to all five rings. And the Pentagon was a seriously reinforced building. As for your reasoning, it can support any conclusion.
If the Men in Black were really responsible for 9-11, doesn't it make sense they're Neuralize anyone who knew about it?
Synesthesia,
quote:Was this the same video that stated that a high rise building doesn't collapse because of a fire because it is reinforced with solid powerful steel? Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building?
That reinforced steel will melt and degrade if it gets hot enough-which it did. The airplane was a commercial airliner, as swarms of eyewitness accounts and actual damage to the Pentagon's five rings and reinforced structure confirms. The debris does not match what a layman might expect because of the enormous fire which incinerated much of it.
Ryan Hart,
quote:Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon.
Inside the Pentagon and destroyed. The plane went into the Pentagon. The windows were supported and encased by the reinforcement of the entire structure, and although I'm not actually sure there's a chance that windows on the Pentagon might not be ordinary glass.
I'd certainly place that probability a smidgen higher than a massive complicated conspiracy by an evil government that nonetheless was so inept it couldn't tie up these loose ends any knucklehead can observe.
quote:The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Passports aren't just naked paper. They're held in things. Furthermore, all kinds of strange things survive fires and airplane crashes. It's not an exact totally predictible science.
The wings snapped when it hit the building and were forced in alongside the fuselage.
quote: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):
These kinds of "theories" make me tired. There isn't a single objection raised by that "compelling" video that hasn't been soundly put to rest by just one thorough look at the Snopes article.
But I know it pleases the ego to think one is the lone possessor of Truth, and smarter than the other sheep.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
You don't think things got thrown around during the crash?
quote:The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
quote:Because it is extremely difficult to fly a plain that weighs several hundred tons 2 feet off the ground if you're a poor pilot (which was the general consensus about Hani Hanjour).
It wasn't "2 feet off the ground":
quote: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):
quote:(EDIT: Off topic, but Dag are you a Hoya?)
Nope. I'm a double 'hoo.
quote:THe snopes rebuttal doesn't hold water. The hole on the exterior of the Pentagon was only 16ft wide. Skecthy enough for the fuselage, but for the fuselage and the wings? Not likely. Also for the photagraphed piece of debris. That's the largest piece. The only one of that size. That doesn't compare to other plane crash debris.
How do you know? First, there is no evidence the hole is only 16 feet wide. Further, there was other damage besides the hole.
From snopes:
quote: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):
posted
Rakeesh, Did you read the snopes article and watch the video? I ask because your description is not correct. There are planty of issues raised by the video that are not addressed by the snopes article, which was not written to refute the claims of this video, but rather related, earlier claims.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
But the fire didn't start the instant the plane hit the building, and the air around it at the time of the crash certainly wasn't hot enough to ignite paper. So the passport could have been thrown clear in the crash/explosion, and not been involved in the fire at all.
As already stated, the points in the video are basically total crap. The incredible amount of work you're theorizing to make it work is just amazing.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually if you watch the videos of that day, the fire did start the instant the plane made contact with the tower.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mind isn't made up, but I was disturbed by the video, and I have two things still bothering me, after reading some well-reasoned responses in this thread...
1) Where was the wreckage from flight 77 and flight 93? Where were the bodies? Where were the jets?
2) If the twin towers weren't brought down by demolitions, what were those explosions and those flashes of light in the lower floors as the towers came down?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where was the wreckage from flight 77 and flight 93? Where were the bodies? Where were the jets?
These questions were already completely answered.
quote:what were those explosions and those flashes of light
If you crush anything containing elecricity or power, you are going to get sparks. If you crush something very large with very large amounts of power running though it you are going to get very large sparks and explosions.
I beg of you all, please use your own minds so we don't have to sit here answering your queries over and over the same questions. If you have questions yourself after watching that video, go look for the answers online.
Also, start with the assumption that it's not a conspiracy, rather than the other way around. I'm not saying don't question, I'm saying question in a reasonable way from the most likely and simple explanation of the incident rather than from an extreme view.
Only once you have completely eliminated the obvious explanation can you move on to slightly less obvious explanations, and finally, once those are completely eliminated those you can start along the magic/science fiction/conspiracy lines.
posted
Know a guy who was in the Pentagon when it was hit. It was hit by an airliner.
Ditto's Teshi's points about the "explosions" while the towers were coming down. The power available in those things has some pretty powerful destructive power. There are arcflash levels that will kill a man just with the concussive blast.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These questions were already completely answered.
Not to my satisfaction.
And you know, this is a discussion forum, and the topic being discussed is "9-11 Conspiracy". If you don't want to participate in such a discussion, that is your perogative, leave the thread.
But it is silly to tell others to stop asking questions just so you don't have to answer them.
You are under no obligation to participate in this conversation. Do not belittle those of us who wish to. Uncool.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is except for Dagonee, Rakeesh, Irregardless, and Teshi.
This is the biggest excuse for trying to scapegoat an answer as I have seen in a while. An' for some stupid reason I am going to post in it.
quote: I'm seriously thinking of relocating to another country. Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Anyone suggest a good country to move to? (I am not joking around, I believe this video and several others like it and don't know what to do about it other than relocate)
Stone_Wolf_, why are you still here then? You have absolute freedom to leave this country and yet...you stay. If your conviction to leave is so strong, then move. I tire of these comments.
I had a conviction and I stuck to it. I signed my name on the dotted line to use my life to protect this country if it came to it. I still would. However, your comments almost make me feel like I am wasting it. Almost. See, my family and friends are my primary reasons. They don't feed me this Bull%$&^ of a line about wanting to leave for some stupid reason.
However, I tire. Any responses...just keep em. I'm going to abandon this thread like the "red headed step child" it has grown to be.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the love of Christ. First of all, I've never said that the video had me convinced *at all*. But I chose to watch it with an open mind, and those are the questions I came away with. The *research* I've done consists of reading this thread and clicking links.
That's it.
I am not taking the position that there was some kind of conspiracy. I asked a question because I figured, hey, this is hatrack, and it's full of smart people, and someone surely has expertise that I lack on this particular issue, or has thought of it in a way that I did not.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: First, there is no evidence the hole is only 16 feet wide. Further, there was other damage besides the hole.
I have to say, the hole looks bigger than 16 ft. But not much. And the damage surrounding the main hole looks mostly like fire damage. As for the plane being smashed up and almost completely incinerated, that doesn't, to my knowledge, usually happen with other crashes. Also, why didn't the turbines do any damage to the outer wall?
Also, there's the problem of the missing security cameras from the gas station and sheraton hotel. The few frames of the impact that I have seen don't show a plane, so I consider them inconclusive.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, I apologise for seeming harsh. As I said before, I do not oppose the thread itself. I shall explain myself further:
I feel like the people who took responsibility for answering the questions in this thread have been doing all of the legwork. I realise we could have just ignored this thread, so it is partially our own fault.
In this thread, the posters who have been skeptical, inconvinced, questioning whatever what you want to call it, have done very little of their own discussion on the topic in a meaningful fashion, or any of their own research. Many questions have been posed such as "Why was the Pentagon hardly damaged?" but the asker of the question didn't say something that could concievably answer that question, discussing the possibilities himself or herself or providing possible solutions or discussion.
Since none of the questioners were answering or discussing themselves, I, for one, felt compelled to respond and give answers. I don't have expertise in this area, I have research skills and common sense. I am no smarter than you.
quote:or has thought of it in a way that I did not.
But TL, you did not present your own views in any detailed fashion, only answered two questions. You did not lead me to believe you had any idea what the flashes could have been were they not explosives. I answered your question as best as I could using what I know about electronics*.
My problem is/was that I felt that this "discussion" was not a discussion, but a rather one sided question and answer session.
I hoep this helps you understand why I encourage your (plural your) own investigation into this topic, rather than relying on people like Dagonee to dig up information for you.
Also, research will allow you to remember more and also follow the directions you are interested in more easily.
* Please note, I only know what I know from being around electrical equipment, such as a toaster or a lightbulb, all my life.
EDIT: Juxtapose, I reinterate myself: You ask questions but you do not use your own mind. You say only "here's my proof", you do not suggest your own personal solutions to the problem.
The Problem being in this case that it is most likely not a conspiracy, therefore, this must be explainable.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
The people who composed that video cribbed their bass loop from Massive Attack (who may well have cribbed it from somewhere else themselves). It was featured as persistent background music in a good chunk of the playable portion of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, which prominently features elaborate conspiracy theories that are stylistically similar to this one. It wouldn't really surprise me if these folks did indeed play and love that game.
quote:Juxtapose, I reinterate myself: You ask questions but you do not use your own mind. You say only "here's my proof", you do not suggest your own personal solutions to the problem.
That's because I don't have a solution to the problem. I think the video makes some good points, but has some holes in it. I think the same thing about the snopes article. So...I'm confused. I never thought, nor do I think that this all adds up to Bush ordering an attack on his own country, but by the same token, this administration hasn't been very trustworthy.
Does a widespread government conspiracy sound somewhat absurd? Yes. Does the idea of a 757 squeezing, wings and all, into that hole sound equally absurd? More or less.
The point here is that I don't know the answer to this problem, so I'm asking questions. As you said, you're certainly not obligated to answer them, but if it's getting annoying to keep having holes in your argument pointed out, maybe you should reevaluate that argument.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose, that hole looks as expected to my untrained eye (my degree is in chemical engineering, not civil or structural). You can even see wider areas where the wings partly went in. I see no reason to assume that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757.
Your comment that the 757 would have to have "squeezed" into that hole shows where we're coming from different places, I think. It didn't "squeeze in" at all. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building; I think the 757 hit and was basically torn to pieces as it passed through. So the wings were broken back (the wing holes aren't as long as the wings themselves for this reason) since they weren't designed to bear any significant load from that direction, the fuselage went straight in like an arrow and then the outer ring collapsed behind it. I'm not at all surprised that they didn't find anything -- I mean, it would be a lot like sifting through the WTC wreckage and expecting to be able to pick out what used to be part of a plane.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the idea of a 757 squeezing, wings and all, into that hole sound equally absurd?
quote:That's because I don't have a solution to the problem.
Other than reading other rebuttals or reports, there are several things you can do here independantly, and then report to this thread.
1) Find out the size of the hole and the width of the aircraft. Read about the strength of the wings and how much force it would take to snap them off. Also, look at how the wings are attached to the craft- do they stick out straight or are they already pointing backwards?
2) Find more photographs of the crash site, there must be thousands. Remember to look for non-conspiracy ones to balance your viewpoint.
3) Think what you know about fire and the density of heat within it. Also read about the building itself.
4) Think of what else could have made such a hole.
That's what I would do. Generally, you can start by searching using google "9/11 pentagon crash" or something. See what you get.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has addressed what happened at flight 93. Where were the bodies of the victims that went down in that flight? I'll tell you. They were "incinerated." This is the only time in the history of aviation that that has ever happened.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Juxtapose, that hole looks as expected to my untrained eye (my degree is in chemical engineering, not civil or structural). You can even see wider areas where the wings partly went in. I see no reason to assume that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757.
Your comment that the 757 would have to have "squeezed" into that hole shows where we're coming from different places, I think. It didn't "squeeze in" at all. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building; I think the 757 hit and was basically torn to pieces as it passed through. So the wings were broken back (the wing holes aren't as long as the wings themselves for this reason) since they weren't designed to bear any significant load from that direction, the fuselage went straight in like an arrow and then the outer ring collapsed behind it. I'm not at all surprised that they didn't find anything -- I mean, it would be a lot like sifting through the WTC wreckage and expecting to be able to pick out what used to be part of a plane.
I concur. Having looked at the relevant photos, there are reinforced columns still intact in the lower floors, so it's certainly true that the wingspan of a 757 could not have fit inside intact. But why would you expect it to be intact? The aluminum wings would fragment and the pieces would be carried into the building (between columns) by inertia.
BTW, I'm a Chem. E., too. Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: No one has addressed what happened at flight 93. Where were the bodies of the victims that went down in that flight? I'll tell you. They were "incinerated." This is the only time in the history of aviation that that has ever happened.
Again, why fake this? If Big Brother is willing to kill thousands of people, and these people in particular, why go to the trouble of killing them elsewhere AND incompetently faking a crash, when you could accomplish both by simply crashing the plane into the ground?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
You've got me there. I've read the article on several occassions, but have not seen the entire film. I should not have said that the article refuted all of the film, because I am uncertain if it has or not. I got too irritated with the conspiracy theory and was wrong to have said so.
I will say this, though: all of the most serious objections raised in this thread-the damage to the Pentagon, the passport, the debris-have been dealt with many times.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I stayed at a hotel in DC that had there satellite knocked off the roof by the incoming plane.
As far as flight 93, there were the phone calls to people on the ground, and the victims of plane crashes are often incinerated in the crash because of the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
Its completely irrational to think that government would have any motivation to kill two planefulls of people and fire a missile at the pentagon. When you think logically about a 9/11 conspiracy, it becomes impossible. Where the terrorists in on it, why has Bin Laden taken credit for the attack. Thousands of people would have to be privy to this, not one of them found it extreme enough to say anything.
This entire thread is incredibly offensive. Try using Occam's razor; all the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists. There's no reason to go about assigning all these extravagant means and motives to the government. Try using a little common sense and maybe watching a little less Al-Jazeera.
Sorry in advance for the truculent tone of this post, but this stuff is really offensive.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
At this entire discussion ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
thanks, I was confused.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
