Sign in to follow this  
starbug1

The Truth about 9/11

Recommended Posts

The wings and tail would break away leaving only the bottom tough (possibly steel) frame. This would be consistant with the hole left. I haven't seen too many missiles but that doesn't look like a missile. Also, the plane fuel would cause higher temp's than usual fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for the love of...

 

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

 

Look, I can make cut and paste responses to all of this bullshit. Maybe you should actually read that.

 

1) there is no empirical eye-witness evidence with which to rely as pure evidence saying a plane actually flew into the pentagon.

 

Eye Witness Testimony

 

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.

 

 

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"

- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

 

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."

- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

 

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."

- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

 

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

 

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

 

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

 

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

 

2) the hole made was smaller than the plane. As you know there are conflicting reports on this. And since I am no expert on missile impact, I have only read about and watched all to prove that it may have been a missile but less likely so a plane. The website "hunting the boeing" has photographs that show how a 757 could have made the damage at the pentagon. These photographs were taken of the hole after the roof collapsed. Other photographs show a smaller hole, and other than the "hunting the boeing" website, no valid photographs or evidence showed the hole to be large enough. these photographs show the actual size of the impact hole before the roof collaspes. The original hole is 14X16 ft. Additionally, there is no damage to the roof, where the tail of the plane should have hit. Likewise, there is no damage where the wings should have hit. Only a small hole, and no wreckage on the lawn.

 

Pentagon3.jpgsmall-757.jpg

 

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

 

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.

 

3) The security camera clip showing the crash into pentagon does not show a 757, it does not show any plane at all, only an explosion.

 

The Gate Camera

Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).

 

camera1b.gif

 

I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's banking slightly to starboard instead of to port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

 

4) furthermore, the evidence and the photographs are curiously different for the impact of a plane. The official story says there is evidence, but the conpiracy evidence cannot wholly be disproved. So the strawman does not work. And there is evidence to prove that it was a missile. People are quoted to have said, "it sounded like a missile," "it was not a plane," and all the variations.

 

Yes, and people reported hearing four shots at the Kennedy assassination. What does the majority say?

 

The majority of pictures taken directly after the crash show there to be no evidence of a plane. The firemen who put out the fire at the pentagon were scheduled for an interview, but were kept from speaking to anybody about it.

 

Oh jesus mother****ing christ, will you just read the link?

 

The wheel:

rim1.jpg

rim2.jpg

 

The bulkhead:

landinggear002.jpg

 

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

your-own-evidence.jpg

 

Parts from the turbine:

planeparts-1.jpg

Damage9.jpg

 

Parts with original markings:

757-americanlogo.jpg

 

To further my argument, we know the pentagon isn't the only issue here. How would you explain how World Trade Center building number 7 was found in rubble, when no plane ever hit that building? The Bush administration says fire was responsible. Fire responsible for demolishing a 47 floor steel building? At 5:30pm that day the building imploded, after having only a few small fires. Even if the building was completely ablaze, it's been proved that fire has never completely caused a steel building to implode or result to rubble because of fire.

 

How would you explain the mysterious objects attached to the bottom of flights 175 and flight 11, and the flashs on the front of both planes just prior before they hit? The only known footage of flight 175 shows distinctly the same flash as was seen on the footage of flight 11 impacting the south tower.

 

I don't offhand, because I don't have to. "How do you explain" [...] "you can't, therefore it was this!" is an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY

 

Please, stop spreading bullshit based on logical fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because the majority says so doesn't mean it's right. And the Pentagon isn't in New York.

 

Trying to accuse me of ignorance doesn't work when you stated, "it was supposed to be a surprise attack." Anyone can see that you mean "the terrorist attacks of 9/11" not just the attack on the Pentagon. Just because the majority of the citizens of New York didn't think it was a surprise attack may not mean it's right, but it is a fact.

 

 

Plane crashing into solid concrete building != plane crashing into tall, steel and glass skyscraper.

 

This is insignificant to your claim that "Planes are fragile."

 

 

Why doesn't it happen? Says who? The buildings collapsed before the fire was extinguished, and several thousand gallons of jet fuel certainly didn't help things.

 

It's been proved it doesn't. Experts say that it can't happen. ONCE AGAIN: no plane crashed into WTC #7.

 

My other questions have still been neglected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because the majority of the citizens of New York didn't think it was a surprise attack may not mean it's right' date=' but it is a fact.

[/quote']

Wait, are you saying it wasn't a surprise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for the love of...

 

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

 

Look' date=' I can make cut and paste responses to all of this bullshit. Maybe you should actually read that.

 

 

 

Eye Witness Testimony

 

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.

 

 

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"

- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

 

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."

- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

 

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."

- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

 

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

 

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

 

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

 

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.'] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

 

 

 

Pentagon3.jpgsmall-757.jpg

 

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

 

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.

 

 

 

The Gate Camera

Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).

 

camera1b.gif

 

I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's banking slightly to starboard instead of to port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

 

 

 

Yes, and people reported hearing four shots at the Kennedy assassination. What does the majority say?

 

 

 

Oh jesus mother****ing christ, will you just read the link?

 

The wheel:

rim1.jpg

rim2.jpg

 

The bulkhead:

landinggear002.jpg

 

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

your-own-evidence.jpg

 

Parts from the turbine:

planeparts-1.jpg

Damage9.jpg

 

Parts with original markings:

757-americanlogo.jpg

 

 

 

I don't offhand, because I don't have to. "How do you explain" [...] "you can't, therefore it was this!" is an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY

 

Please, stop spreading bullshit based on logical fallacies.

 

I have already said that the original pictures taken right after impact, there was nothing in the form of plane wreckage on the lawn. I've read the site, and I've seen the picture, which disagree with the pictures I've seen. The only security camera footage shows an object that can't be made out. There is just as much reason to believe it is a missile than it is a plane.

 

The eye-witness accounts you listed are almost laughable. All but three of them made no mention of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 of the testimonies trying to prove what we were told to believe are addressing directly to what they thought was a plane hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 is not even majority, and is a pathetic number to consider for your "proof."

 

I'm actually trying to debate this sensibly. Bascule, if you want to debate this the right way, that's fine. Making profane and impatient remarks all the time, assuming you have all the evidence isn't going to go over well. You could at least try to consider the evidence I'm giving, try to disprove what I've said without directing me to a site I've already said to have read.

 

I have posted a link for the DVD, and I've posted other evidence that has been abruptly ignored.

 

I've already said that the Pentagon only showed ONE SINGLE HOLE. No wing impact, no roof damage or even marks to show tail impact, and no engine impact. Little fire and smoke damage. ORIGINALLY, no wreckage on the lawn, as seen in the photographs. Denial for any firefighters to do an interview. There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said that the Pentagon only showed ONE SINGLE HOLE. No wing impact' date=' no roof damage or even marks to show tail impact, and no engine impact. Little fire and smoke damage. [/quote']

The wings and tail are made of very fragile aluminum which would break off in a crash.

 

Goto http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm and look at some of the pictures. Almost all have detached wings and many are just piles of rubble and a few show huge fires. There are even some pictures of the 9/11 events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starbug, if you have read the site, then you would have noticed the generator showing impact damage.

 

A plausible theory must explain observed data. How does your theory account for the damage to the generator and the fact it is moved toward the building impact point?

I've already said that the Pentagon only showed ONE SINGLE HOLE. No wing impact, no roof damage or even marks to show tail impact, and no engine impact. Little fire and smoke damage. ORIGINALLY, no wreckage on the lawn, as seen in the photographs. Denial for any firefighters to do an interview. There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."
]

1. As the aircraft wings and tail were turned into aluminium confetti in nanoseconds, the wing itself may not have hit the wall. I don't know what happens to highly stressed aluminium under those conditions and neither do the conspiracy theorists. You will perhaps note that conspiracy theorists don't count amoung their number anybody with a professional knowledge of aircraft crashes. They are laymen.

 

2. Eyewitness accounts of aircraft debris raining down for minutes would seem to contradict your statement of "no debris". Can you post a link to any photo taken shortly after the impact that shows no debris?

 

3.If you look at satellite photos taken after the event (which are on the site mentioned) you would observe smoke blackening and fire damage all the way to the inner ring.

 

4. As it was a major disaster affecting the US Military HQ, do you think it unreasonable that firefighters be banned from commenting? Bearing in mind that those behind the hijackers would be eager to hear any news of exactly how damaging their attack was. How much are you willing to tell your enemies?

 

5. No-one says that the bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon were next to the impact. The concussion from such an impact is quite capable of killing people 200 feet away. These bodies were not near the fire and therefore didn't burn.

 

Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) The security camera clip showing the crash into pentagon does not show a 757' date=' it does not show any plane at all, only an explosion.[/quote']

 

Do you have any idea what the frame rate on security cameras are? they are quite low which means that an object moving as fast as a 757 has a good chance of passing the camera between frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bush administration said fire fatigued the steel and caused the building to collapse. This does not happen. Let me ask you' date=' have you ever seen a building completely ablaze? After the fires are extinguished, what's left is a steel frame and the outline of windows, at the very least. All pictures of ground zero show all seven buildings in rubble. Note the the WTC main buildings, fell straight down. Now for those of you who don't believe they were detonated, this still doesn't prove how the other buildings collapsed. Remember that building seven [i']imploded[/i] and fell straight down.

yes but the buildings werent just lit on fire, they were hit by an oncoming boeing 747 going at top speed with gallons of fuel. the force created by the impact and collapse of the buildings could be enough to knock down adjacent buildings. and no matter what proof you provide, i still wont beleive you for one reason. why the hell would a government like the US government want to murder thousands of its citizens and emergency personel and create endless economic turmoil? and lets face it, bush isnt really smart enough to arrange that type of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conspiracy theorist argument seems to be "There's no evidence of a plane (which is wrong to begin with) therefore it couldn't have been a plane' date=' it had to have been a missile or some other projectile!" (when there's no evidence of that)

[/quote']

that sounds like the way intelligent design and creationism are proven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually trying to debate this sensibly.

 

May i suggest that you cite what you are claiming. I, for one, tend to ignore arguments that rely upon uncited facts, because its too dificult to establish wether or not the facts are being interpreted correctly. for example:

 

There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."

 

Which bodies? how close to the centre of impact? close enough to be incredible, or far away enough to have died from asphixia from the smoke, but not get burnt from the fire? who knows, if you dont cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and lets face it, bush isnt really smart enough to arrange that type of thing.

Knowledge is power, hide it well =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and lets face it, bush isnt really smart enough to arrange that type of thing.

 

Bush isn't a dictator, you know... he does have smarter people working for him... (not that I consider that proof of conspiracy, but you know what I mean)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theories are propagated by people who revel in the idea of knowing more about a particular event or having the inside story even if there extra details are unfounded - it is a conversation piece at best.

 

This particular example is annoying because there are so many real issues that people should be considering. Why is there such a difference in opinion between western values and those of other cultures, etc, etc. This kind of talk just distracts attention from what is really important.

 

Kiddies can constuct their conspiracy theories and be playground prophets if they choose - I would rather discuss the issues that definately face us rather than the ones that might do given a string of spectacular coincidences and secret plots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wings and tail are made of very fragile aluminum which would break off in a crash.

 

Goto http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm and look at some of the pictures. Almost all have detached wings and many are just piles of rubble and a few show huge fires. There are even some pictures of the 9/11 events.

 

Please JustStuit' date=' I've said many times that the pictures taken of the Pentagon are controversial. Some show rubble and some do not. I've acknowledged that wings and tail would break off in such a crash. They do not do so without leaving any such indication and moreover they do not bend back and follow the rest of the planes fuselage into the building.

 

Now, for all of the sites I've been directed to, I think I have one that should be looked at. Look at the pictures here, and tell me how you can discount these as unusable evidence for the conspiracy.

 

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

 

Do you have any idea what the frame rate on security cameras are? they are quite low which means that an object moving as fast as a 757 has a good chance of passing the camera between frames.

 

They have an unidentified object on frame. It cannot be proved plane or missile either way.

 

yes but the buildings werent just lit on fire, they were hit by an oncoming boeing 747 going at top speed with gallons of fuel. the force created by the impact and collapse of the buildings could be enough to knock down adjacent buildings.

 

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that this was WTC building number seven. This is not the north tower or south tower that were hit by two airplanes. It was a 47 floor building that was not hit by a plane. The two main towers collasped straight down, and no part of this affected the structure of building number 7. It is in the pictures. It is in the footage. Clouds of dust and debris do not cause a building to implode or collapse, even if this building had small fires on a few floors.

 

and no matter what proof you provide, i still wont beleive you for one reason. why the hell would a government like the US government want to murder thousands of its citizens and emergency personel and create endless economic turmoil? and lets face it, bush isnt really smart enough to arrange that type of thing.

 

are you sure you know what you are saying?

 

May i suggest that you cite what you are claiming. I' date=' for one, tend to ignore arguments that rely upon uncited facts, because its too dificult to establish wether or not the facts are being interpreted correctly. for example:

 

Quote:

There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."[/quote']

 

This is a direct quotation of contradiction. The official story, in response to the missing parts of the plane, said that the fire caused by the explosion was hot enough to disentegrate most of the plane. Bodies were found and easily identified near the crash site. I haven't cited the quotation because I'm mostly using the information from my DVD's, which a lot of is not on the internet.

 

Which bodies? how close to the centre of impact? close enough to be incredible, or far away enough to have died from asphixia from the smoke, but not get burnt from the fire? who knows, if you dont cite?

 

The only thing for you to do is to watch the DVDs. I believe someone said Loose Change was found for a free download on Google. And I posted the 9/11: Confronting the Evidence link for a free DVD. There is very little effort involved in downloading or ordering a free DVD. A very important DVD.

 

Conspiracy theories are propagated by people who revel in the idea of knowing more about a particular event or having the inside story even if there extra details are unfounded -

 

These extra details and inside knowledges have been enough to prove that this is not a conspiracy theory.

 

it is a conversation piece at best.

 

Not to everybody, it isn't

 

This particular example is annoying because there are so many real issues that people should be considering. Why is there such a difference in opinion between western values and those of other cultures, etc, etc. This kind of talk just distracts attention from what is really important.

 

Kiddies can constuct their conspiracy theories and be playground prophets if they choose - I would rather discuss the issues that definately face us rather than the ones that might do given a string of spectacular coincidences and secret plots.

 

I know what you're saying, but that's not what we're trying to do here.

 

 

...I'm still waiting for someone who has seen the DVDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... does anybody else realize how pointless it is to trade links back and forth? Consipiracy theorists will believe whatever they want to, without asking advice for the rest of us... Personally, I refuse to believe that my government is reponsible for the murder of 3,000 of it's own citizens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now' date=' for all of the sites I've been directed to, I think I have one that should be looked at. Look at the pictures here, and tell me how you can discount these as unusable evidence for the conspiracy.

 

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

"Here we have an Apartment Building in Amsterdam taken out by a 600,000 lb 747. Much Larger Hole don't you think?"

Much larger plane too.

 

"Mystery Aircraft in video taped in Pentagon Area when all flights were suppose to be down" [they say it may have been used to guide the cruise missile]

a) cruise missiles don't need guidance after launch

b) the image provided is so tiny that it's impossible to tell anything from it

 

"Have a look at this business jet that hit a warehouse after skidding off a runway in New Jersey on Feburary 2, 2005. See that the wing has folded back, however that strong cinder block construction still got knocked out by the one wing that hit the building. Interesting that the same was not shown on the Pentagon. More examples of this will probably come in over time. Just note that wings damage walls, but not Pentagon walls, right? Also the plane is intact like, it didn't go poof! Hmmm..."

Skidding off a runway. Planes don't go 400 mph on runways, they go 100. Different situation entirely.

 

"Another obvious question is, What are spools of heavy gauge wire doing on the west lawn of the Pentagon? "

They were just completing a major renovation of the Pentagon at the time.

 

About their speculations that a Global Hawk did it: Global Hawks have the same wingspan as a 757 (or larger), so it doesn't match any of their "evidence" against a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

 

"Clearly the blue part of the color is wrong and it supports the theory that something made to look like an American Airlines 757 is what actually hit the Pentagon. Also the granularity of the paint is different the AA 757 has a more metallic look to it."

It's a grainy picture. And that piece of debris has been bashed around quite a bit. It's hard to make evidence out of that.

 

"The thing I find so interesting about this picture is the glass on the pavement in proximity of the pole. A jet going roughly 400 MPH hitting the pole and the glass from the light lands near where the pole is. The glass should have shattered the instant the plane hit the pole and land in a totally different area. This pole looks like it was just tossed into this position. What is also interesting in all the pole pictures is that the poles seem to have snapped off at the base. The mid section of the pole isn't even bent or dented, which is where the maximum stress would be as the pole bends."

Erm.... did they even look at the pictures? They are bent and dented. It's not the natural curve of the poles either, if you look at the pictures of the original poles.

 

"Considering the sheer strength of the poles I find it hard to imagine that wing wasn't severely damaged. The other thing about the light poles is that the plane was traveling very fast, about 400 MPH. If the plane hit the poles going that speed the poles wouldn't be close the road or on the road, rather they would be thrown a long way from the road, providing they didn't sheer the wings off. "

Perhaps your speculation is wrong and the wings did suffer serious damage, with the poles denting them nicely and therefore dissapating some of the energy, which would cause them to not go flying nearly as far.

 

"You think that if a wing could take out a light pole a simple steel column would be Swiss cheese as well?"

Not when that wing has already been damaged by the light pole.

 

"The only problem with this video footage is that it has been altered and can not be fully trusted."

Says who?

 

Regarding this video: you can see a large object in the first frame there. Missiles tend to be small objects.

 

"My point is that Cruise Missiles make vapour trails like this, but not always. Another explanation could be that an engine was damaged if and when it hit the light poles. Land and sea based cruise missiles have a solid rocket propellant that gives off white smoke like this, the Space Shuttle is a good example of that."

They also get rid of that solid rocket propellant after five seconds of flight, and switch to a small jet engine.

 

"The other notable aspect to the explosion is that it look very similar to a fuel air bomb."

Gee... you have an airplane's gas tanks hitting a building at 400mph and bursting, spraying fuel into the air... why won't it look like a fuel-air bomb?

 

"Question: When does anyone put a fire truck beside a helipad 2 hours before anyone is suppose to be there?"

Because it's the President and you're supposed to be paranoid about his safety.

 

Whee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The trade center towers were constructed much different than conventional buildings. This allowed for their specific collapsing patern. Watch the history channel special on the towers, which was originally taped before september 11th.

 

2. The pentagon was also an abnormal construction project. If i remember correctly the thing might aswell be a giant block of cement with windows. From that information I can easily say that any example of a plane hitting a building and leaving an explotion footprint is going to differ from the pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rim alledgely photographed inside the Pentagon. It does not match any rim found on the Global Hawk, but does resemble a 757 rim fairly closely but not 100%. The Color is not silvery

 

a little extract from that last website. The colour isn't the same and it doesn't look the same. no wonder, it crashed into a fudging building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a book starbug1 needs to read:

 

292

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duly noted bascule, it was on my reading list anyway...

 

I thank you all for posting, and I'll take this as my first debating lesson...I learned quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think none of us can say with certanity about 9/11, maybe it was a plane, but maybe the goverment was behind it or had a hand in it. Or maybe is really was a terrorist attack... Because after all there is always doubt...

 

But I don't think it would be in country's best intrest to lets say prove with some real evidence that the goverment was behind it. Its best to keep this story the way it is, even if its not true. I think it would cause choas, probably riots, severe mistrust of the government, probably economic chaos if such evidence were to come out.

 

And lets say the government was behind 9/11... In that case, there probably would be a very good reason to kill 3,000 U.S. citizens.... one that would perhaps benefit the nation 15, 20 years down the road , lets say when oil runs out or something... I don't know... I mean theories say that Pearl Harbour was known about.. well look what WW2 did for the country...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of belaboring a point laid out by others in a less than civil way...

 

Starbug1, understand that the evidence you've linked to amounts to judgements reached by persons of dubious authority. Since you're not an expert, and few if any people who've posted here (including yourself) have a background in basic continuum mechanics, let alone specific background in aerospace engineering, there are few people here (once again, including yourself) in a position to evaluate these claims either way.

 

The point I think others are trying to make is that absent that sort of expertise and trust in the authority of the judgements you've posted, there may be reason for you to remain skeptical of these 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations pcs, I just took you off ignore.

 

And LOL @ your avatar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this