Jump to content

Pentagon Plane Crash...Was It Really A Plane?


Tiger's Eye

Recommended Posts

I came across this weblink last night, and I must say that it really did bring about a lot of questions...not only about the real occurence of certain events, but also the way of our government...It was really kinda creepy watching it. It gave me the chills. But that coulda been because of the background music included :P Neways, here's the link: http://www.sahaskatta.com/html/videos_2.html#Main.

 

Basically, this video presents a different theory about the plane crash in the Pentagon, and I must admit that some of what was being presented in the video seemed kinda convincing, to say the least. It's pretty self-explanatory, so I recommend that you guys check it out. If any of it is really true, then our government...really screwed up...some crazy stuff.

 

K, cya l8er!

 

Tiger :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, interesting. Hmmmm...It's a pretty controversial issue, isn't it? Pretty mind-boggling.

 

no... it's not mind boggling or controversal at all. People who say that it was wasn't caused by an airplane are simply avoiding all the evidence (probably on purpose just to be a pain in everyone's ass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh butterchrist, how easily unskeptical people are infected with pathological memes.

 

Please, for the love of god, do your research before you spread a meme.

 

Google is great for these kinds of things. For example, try typing "Did an airplane really hit the Pentagon?" into Google, click I'm Feeling Lucky, and here's what you'll get:

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

That's a pretty concise summary of the evidence. Certainly much better than a random video that asks bullshit questions and merely spreads FUD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
no... it's not mind boggling or controversal at all. People who say that it was wasn't caused by an airplane are simply avoiding all the evidence (probably on purpose just to be a pain in everyone's ass)

 

As a matter of fact I agree completely but still, here is yet another video that questions if it was truly a plane:

 

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hmm I've got a question. If a boeing with that much jet fuel in is trapped inside a concrete structure like the Pentagon, then wouldn't the force of the explosion of Jet Fuel cause what's left of the plane to be incinerated? There for only small peices are found?:D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'story' about no passenger jet hitting the Pentagon is an old intelligence trick called "poisoning the well". The general idea is to purposely put out ridiculous lies to be mixed with embarrassing truth. The media can use the foolish story to ridicule people. There are lots of people with very valid and serious concerns about the events of Sept. 11th, which I won't go into right now.

 

They can expect to be treated as wackos by being associated with that kind of story.

 

Job done I guess. By the way folks the rest of the damn plane is in the building. Use your heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

My roommate was watching a conspiracy theory movie the other day and I thought of something. If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?
Umm, Bermuda. Yeah, Bermuda, *that's* the ticket!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My roommate was watching a conspiracy theory movie the other day and I thought of something. If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?

 

The plane landed at a secret airbase, where Bush and Cheney personally gassed the cabin, loaded all the dead bodies into the tip of a cruise missile, and fired it at the Pentagon.

 

And that's not morbid humor. I have friends who actually believe that. It's really sad. Apparently that makes more sense to them than the "official explanation"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane landed at a secret airbase, where Bush and Cheney personally gassed the cabin, loaded all the dead bodies into the tip of a cruise missile, and fired it at the Pentagon.

 

And that's not morbid humor. I have friends who actually believe that. It's really sad. Apparently that makes more sense to them than the "official explanation"

 

 

WOW.....people will believe almost anything these days!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true that some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are completely stupid. But why not tackle the issues that have validity? For instance, why was building 7 destroyed when it had little to no damage whatsoever? I suppose it was just a coincidence that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the trade center complex, took out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and bought up building 7 just a few months before the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true that some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are completely stupid. But why not tackle the issues that have validity? For instance, why was building 7 destroyed when it had little to no damage whatsoever? I suppose it was just a coincidence that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the trade center complex, took out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and bought up building 7 just a few months before the event.

 

I know that seems suspicious but honestly that has to be coincidental. I think some people get so consumed in movies and books, etc. and then believe every far fetched thing that could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that seems suspicious but honestly that has to be coincidental. I think some people get so consumed in movies and books, etc. and then believe every far fetched thing that could happen.

 

You're exactly right, when people dont do their homework they can end up looking like fools. But this does not dismiss the fact that there are indeed issues to be dealt with concerning 9/11. I'll take it a step further with respect to the Silverstein issue. Building 7 came down due to a controlled demolition. The building did not need to be demolished as it had little to no damage. Additionally, it takes months to set up a controlled demolition, and yet they were able to demolish the building in a matter of hours. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right, when people dont do their homework they can end up looking like fools. But this does not dismiss the fact that there are indeed issues to be dealt with concerning 9/11. I'll take it a step further with respect to the Silverstein issue. Building 7 came down due to a controlled demolition. The building did not need to be demolished as it had little to no damage. Additionally, it takes months to set up a controlled demolition, and yet they were able to demolish the building in a matter of hours. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

 

Yes, there's something wrong with this picture, either:

 

1) FDNY covertly planted explosives days/weeks before 9/11, and on one who worked in the building has said a peep

 

- OR -

 

2) Never before in history have buildings so large been brought down by explosions/fire. This is because never before in history have skyscrapers like the Twin Towers been hit by something containing as much flammable/explosive material as a transcontinetal Boeing 767. This, combined with the massive amount of petroleum products found in your typical office building, resulted in an unprecedented explosion/fire, spilling debris onto a building with a system of diesel-fueled backup generators. The combination of falling debris and a diesel-fueled fire brought the building down.

 

Please think about these two possibilites. Then, try listening to Larry Silverstein's statements in the context of #2. Think about the "tremendous loss of life" which occured when a building full of firefighters collapsed. Now think that hundreds of firefighters died trying in futility to preserve buildings that you own. Now imagine two have collapsed already, and a third is about to. Do you:

 

1) ask the firefighters to keep fighting the good fight, even if they don't have water. Gotta fight for your property, even if it's futile.

 

2) pull the firefighters out of the building, let it collapse, and spare some human lives on a day when so many have already been lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from, but again, the collapse was a result of a controlled demolition. Buildings do not have the tendency to collapse inwards, unless each successive floor is blown out, implicative of a controlled demolition. I know you like people to back up what they say with evidence, as do I, so I'll do just that. Larry Silverstein appeared in a PBS documentary called Rebuilding America where he says that building 7 was "pulled," in other words, a controlled demolition:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=larry+silverstein

 

So the question stands, how could they pull the building within a matter of hours when controlled demoltions takes months to set up?

 

Additionally, you mentioned that the impact and burning of jet fuel caused the collapse of the twin towers. However, the towers were made of steel beams. Steel melts at a temperature of roughly 2500°F, but jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1796 °F. You could pour burning jet fuel on steel all day and iits not going to do a thing to it, because it can only burn at a rough maximum of 1796 °F. This is only part of whats wrong with the official 9/11 story, but I'll see how you respond to this, then we can proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, you mentioned that the impact and burning of jet fuel caused the collapse of the twin towers. However, the towers were made of steel beams. Steel melts at a temperature of roughly 2500°F, but jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1796 °F. You could pour burning jet fuel on steel all day and iits not going to do a thing to it, because it can only burn at a rough maximum of 1796 °F. This is only part of whats wrong with the official 9/11 story, but I'll see how you respond to this, then we can proceed.

 

Assuming your numbers are correct, you're still forgetting something: steel doesn't have to melt to become weak.

 

Buildings do not have the tendency to collapse inwards

We haven't really established that, have we? Apart from the quote from Mr. Silverstein, you're just saying "it looked like a controlled demolition, so it had to be one."

 

As for the quote from Silverstein, he said "just pull it." That could easily mean "just pull out." You can't limit your interpretation to make "pull" mean "demolish."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming your numbers are correct, you're still forgetting something: steel doesn't have to melt to become weak.

 

There are only three physical states; solids, liquids, and gases. If it was initially a solid, as the steel beams were, the next state would be one where it is melted. It doesnt matter how hot the substance gets, it will still be a solid until its melting point is reached. All materials have a certain heat capacity, and the increasing heat of the burning fuel would naturally be taken on by the steels heat capacity. It would definitely heat the steel, but not weaken it.

 

We haven't really established that, have we? Apart from the quote from Mr. Silverstein, you're just saying "it looked like a controlled demolition, so it had to be one."

 

As for the quote from Silverstein, he said "just pull it." That could easily mean "just pull out." You can't limit your interpretation to make "pull" mean "demolish."

 

Everytime I've seen a building fall on its own, it has fallen sideways, thats simply because the bottom part of a buildings structure tends to hold. When was the last time you've seen a building fall all by itself and inward? And I'm sure you've seen controlled demolitions, and what happens there? The building always falls inward so as not to damage other buildings. This is where we need to use logic rather than extreme rationalization. Larry Silverstein said "pull it," then they break to a video of the collapse of the building...come on. If he meant pull the firefighters out, then he would have said just that, but its necessary to follow the context that its in. He says "pull it," and they show the building collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.