Report, edit, etc...Posted by aznwolfstein on 2005-03-03 at 20:29:15
i know this is kind of old but i stumbled onto it again recently, what do you guys think about it? could it be true?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KrAzY on 2005-03-03 at 20:38:20
Yes and No because why would they add musics and not animated pictures in cameras.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2005-03-03 at 20:41:14
I'm pretty sure that this has been disproven before, but it does raise some interesting questions, like:
1. Why do all the eyewitnesses disagree with the offical story?
2. Where did all the film go?
3. The object does look too small to be a 757.
4. Where is the wreckage/skid marks/turbulence.
5. Why was there so little damage?
I've heard these counter arguements before:
1. The terrorists were trying to hit the Pentagon, so
A) They dont need to be skilled pilots
B) They dont want to hit the ground (to slow down)
2. The film was confiscated for national security.
3. The wreckage was vaporized.
4. The Pentagon is reinforced.
5. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it?
But counter reasons 2,3 and 4 sound dubious to me.
EDIT: You've got to like the music though. (Not 'This is the new s**t' though...
)
1. Why do all the eyewitnesses disagree with the offical story?
2. Where did all the film go?
3. The object does look too small to be a 757.
4. Where is the wreckage/skid marks/turbulence.
5. Why was there so little damage?
I've heard these counter arguements before:
1. The terrorists were trying to hit the Pentagon, so
A) They dont need to be skilled pilots
B) They dont want to hit the ground (to slow down)
2. The film was confiscated for national security.
3. The wreckage was vaporized.
4. The Pentagon is reinforced.
5. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it?
But counter reasons 2,3 and 4 sound dubious to me.
EDIT: You've got to like the music though. (Not 'This is the new s**t' though...
)Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-03-03 at 22:52:08
Well no matter what, something f-ed up the Pentagon in that attack. It does seem kind of fishy that there was no sign at all of an aircraft hitting it, based on debris and possible skid marks, but alas it is in the past. We're still going on our terrorist-bashing tyrades anyway... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by LegacyWeapon on 2005-03-03 at 22:55:09
So where's the plane now?
I think it could be true, and the government hasn't said anything about the attacks yet
I think it could be true, and the government hasn't said anything about the attacks yet
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Munchkin(ZM) on 2005-03-03 at 23:22:52
Freaky... Its a conspirisy man... Its obvious they(as in the government) crashed it on perpous... otherwise the feds wouldn't have taken it away....O_o
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-03-03 at 23:53:43
Seen it before, most people who I tell or ask about either deny it or also asks questions about it.
The evidence is pretty solid and the reasoning behind it is not very clear so I'm going with the government covering it up theory
The evidence is pretty solid and the reasoning behind it is not very clear so I'm going with the government covering it up theory
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-03-04 at 02:22:36
well it doesn't matter what did the damage, the matter is some one put a big ass hole in my Pentagon building and they are goning to pay! PERIOD
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-03-04 at 02:31:01
There have been lots of rumors of things about 9/11. Such as the fireman's tape, the first uncut vision of the attack. When the plane nears the building, there is a bright flash and an explosion. Its as if the plane fired a missle. If you own the dvd with the firemans footage on it, you'll also notice that the pictures have been edited so that the flash isn't there. I have a tape of the acual news broadcast, so I have seen this in real life. I'm sure you can also find an uncut version online somewhere.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-04 at 03:24:27
What gets me is the lawn. The wreckage should have at least sent chunks of metal flying into it or something, and yet it's untouched right up to the edge of the blast zone.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-04 at 06:12:36
Again, I do not believe that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane as said in the official Gov' story.
They used the WTC images time n' time again to stir animosities up towards the Taliban... n' in all those, they didn't even shown once the Pentagon's footage(s). Weird, to say the least.
I've got a similar opinion than Nozumu's n' Cheeze in this one... again.
Eh, I 'love' being a theory conspiracist...
so, I've recovered an ol' mail link someone sent to me about it.
Edit add: Just to prevent any unsound 'Bushie' hammering about, please look at the Physics of the thing before sayin' b**ls**t.
They used the WTC images time n' time again to stir animosities up towards the Taliban... n' in all those, they didn't even shown once the Pentagon's footage(s). Weird, to say the least.
I've got a similar opinion than Nozumu's n' Cheeze in this one... again.
Eh, I 'love' being a theory conspiracist...
so, I've recovered an ol' mail link someone sent to me about it.Edit add: Just to prevent any unsound 'Bushie' hammering about, please look at the Physics of the thing before sayin' b**ls**t.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-03-04 at 10:32:00
I've seen a website that says many similar things before, and, ya, they're all convincing enough.
"well it doesn't matter what did the damage, the matter is some one put a big ass hole in my Pentagon building and they are goning to pay! PERIOD"
Well, according to evidence from conspiracy theory websites(not that I'll put anymore then a reasonable trust in them...) it would be the government. So go blow up the Whitehouse and have fun with other important buildings.
"well it doesn't matter what did the damage, the matter is some one put a big ass hole in my Pentagon building and they are goning to pay! PERIOD"
Well, according to evidence from conspiracy theory websites(not that I'll put anymore then a reasonable trust in them...) it would be the government. So go blow up the Whitehouse and have fun with other important buildings.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2005-03-04 at 15:26:28
Wow, i wonder if their are any counter examples to prove this wrong!! Man that was a fasinating video! I guess it wasnt hit with a 747 plane!!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2005-03-04 at 18:27:58
In the flash, eyewitnesses said that they thought the object was a "fighter jet" or a "missile"... maybe terrorists hijacked military planes and fired on the Pentagon/WTC, and the American government is hiding that fact so no one knows how easily the terrorists were able to hijack military equipment...
Just a stupid thought I'm guessing. The video sure raises some interesting questions though.
Just a stupid thought I'm guessing. The video sure raises some interesting questions though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SpaceBoy2000 on 2005-03-06 at 01:55:14
Ah. I was wondering when this would show up on here.
First of all, there is an article in "Popular Mechanics" about this. Interesting read. Refutes most of the arguements.
Full article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Section in question: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=6&c=y
Okay, now that I provided my sources...
By the way, keep in mind I saw the movie first, like a month ago.
The wreakage is there. I have no idea what the movie's talking about.
Pilot-wise, I have no explaination. Maybe they got lucky?
As for the footage taken by authorities, I don't think they'll ever see the light of day, regardless whether or not it was a conspiracy or not. Just my gut feeling on this, no real reason.
First of all, there is an article in "Popular Mechanics" about this. Interesting read. Refutes most of the arguements.
Full article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Section in question: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=6&c=y
Okay, now that I provided my sources...
By the way, keep in mind I saw the movie first, like a month ago.
The wreakage is there. I have no idea what the movie's talking about.
Pilot-wise, I have no explaination. Maybe they got lucky?
As for the footage taken by authorities, I don't think they'll ever see the light of day, regardless whether or not it was a conspiracy or not. Just my gut feeling on this, no real reason.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by arglebosters on 2005-03-06 at 10:59:34
Another reason why the videos might have been confiscated is because Bush is embarased. I'm preaty sure that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he still hasn't admited it. He is afraid that if he admits he did something wrong, someone will get very annoyed and start a riot or something. He just won't admit he did something wrong. He has a huge ego and doesn't want to ruin it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-07 at 16:10:33
To reply to SpaceBoy's 'irrefutable' proofs, I'll have to snatch a post of mine from other place where we've 'cussed this already. May I remind anyone that the debree presented didn't scorched the grass below? Amazing... simply amazing. Just to clear that point out. The rest as they say, will come by... eventually.
Just to clear that point out. The rest as they say, will come by... eventually. Report, edit, etc...Posted by SpaceBoy2000 on 2005-03-07 at 18:41:11
Ah yes, I do remember the grass. There's actually a better movie for it, my old history teacher was showing it to us (don't know where to find it though). I have no explaination.
And about the disintegration of the plane, at least the aluminium, I'm pretty sure a good deal of the aluminium would've....for a lack of a better word, "burnt". It probably won't make the plane "disappear" - the steel would remain as iron does not oxidize like aluminium, and the temperature wouldn't have to go THAT high to get rid of aluminium (around 600 degress celcius I think - it's a
ing pain when welding aluminium). Keep in mind that I have no idea on how the plane would "disappear", or why there would be little blast marks. Though I tend to drift towards the "the plane was moving too fast to burn the grass" idea, like how people can walk over hot coals without a burn. I'm only suggesting how some of the aluminium skin would vapourize.
As for the wings shearing off, I'm sure somebody on the web has the numbers for it, but hey, if a university professor says that the wings shear off when it slams into the ground and slams into a load bearing column of the Pentagon, I'd believe him. Until somebody with better qualifications says otherwise, or somebody else disproves the fact that the wings couldn't have sheared off. And I'm pretty sure the designers would not have designed the wing to withstand the huge sudden force of slamming into the ground moving at that speed, and then slamming into a loadbearing column. And like the article said, the 12' hole was NOT made by the fuselage.
Oh, BTW, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Cut me a tad of slack please. Though debating is fun.
And about the disintegration of the plane, at least the aluminium, I'm pretty sure a good deal of the aluminium would've....for a lack of a better word, "burnt". It probably won't make the plane "disappear" - the steel would remain as iron does not oxidize like aluminium, and the temperature wouldn't have to go THAT high to get rid of aluminium (around 600 degress celcius I think - it's a
ing pain when welding aluminium). Keep in mind that I have no idea on how the plane would "disappear", or why there would be little blast marks. Though I tend to drift towards the "the plane was moving too fast to burn the grass" idea, like how people can walk over hot coals without a burn. I'm only suggesting how some of the aluminium skin would vapourize.As for the wings shearing off, I'm sure somebody on the web has the numbers for it, but hey, if a university professor says that the wings shear off when it slams into the ground and slams into a load bearing column of the Pentagon, I'd believe him. Until somebody with better qualifications says otherwise, or somebody else disproves the fact that the wings couldn't have sheared off. And I'm pretty sure the designers would not have designed the wing to withstand the huge sudden force of slamming into the ground moving at that speed, and then slamming into a loadbearing column. And like the article said, the 12' hole was NOT made by the fuselage.
Oh, BTW, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Cut me a tad of slack please. Though debating is fun.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-08 at 08:31:34
QUOTE(SpaceBoy)
Ah yes, I do remember the grass. There's actually a better movie for it, my old history teacher was showing it to us (don't know where to find it though). I have no explaination.
And about the disintegration of the plane, at least the aluminium, I'm pretty sure a good deal of the aluminium would've....for a lack of a better word, "burnt". It probably won't make the plane "disappear" - the steel would remain as iron does not oxidize like aluminium, and the temperature wouldn't have to go THAT high to get rid of aluminium (around 600 degress celcius I think - it's a censored.gif ing pain when welding aluminium). Keep in mind that I have no idea on how the plane would "disappear", or why there would be little blast marks. Though I tend to drift towards the "the plane was moving too fast to burn the grass" idea, like how people can walk over hot coals without a burn. I'm only suggesting how some of the aluminium skin would vapourize.
As for the wings shearing off, I'm sure somebody on the web has the numbers for it, but hey, if a university professor says that the wings shear off when it slams into the ground and slams into a load bearing column of the Pentagon, I'd believe him. Until somebody with better qualifications says otherwise, or somebody else disproves the fact that the wings couldn't have sheared off. And I'm pretty sure the designers would not have designed the wing to withstand the huge sudden force of slamming into the ground moving at that speed, and then slamming into a loadbearing column. And like the article said, the 12' hole was NOT made by the fuselage.
Oh, BTW, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Cut me a tad of slack please. Though debating is fun.
And about the disintegration of the plane, at least the aluminium, I'm pretty sure a good deal of the aluminium would've....for a lack of a better word, "burnt". It probably won't make the plane "disappear" - the steel would remain as iron does not oxidize like aluminium, and the temperature wouldn't have to go THAT high to get rid of aluminium (around 600 degress celcius I think - it's a censored.gif ing pain when welding aluminium). Keep in mind that I have no idea on how the plane would "disappear", or why there would be little blast marks. Though I tend to drift towards the "the plane was moving too fast to burn the grass" idea, like how people can walk over hot coals without a burn. I'm only suggesting how some of the aluminium skin would vapourize.
As for the wings shearing off, I'm sure somebody on the web has the numbers for it, but hey, if a university professor says that the wings shear off when it slams into the ground and slams into a load bearing column of the Pentagon, I'd believe him. Until somebody with better qualifications says otherwise, or somebody else disproves the fact that the wings couldn't have sheared off. And I'm pretty sure the designers would not have designed the wing to withstand the huge sudden force of slamming into the ground moving at that speed, and then slamming into a loadbearing column. And like the article said, the 12' hole was NOT made by the fuselage.
Oh, BTW, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Cut me a tad of slack please. Though debating is fun.
The grass would be burnt at least also from the debrees that landed on it. Do we se any burnt marks on even airplane skidmarks on the grass? No, so there goes out the window the theory of the ground moving plane to say the least.
In that post of mine you can sure see the temperatures needed to decompose that alloy's elements and by no chance those were achieved or else the silica in the ground there would be turned into liquid glass.
Guess what? No glass either. 
The aerodynamical / quality tests of those planes are real tuff and from what I've seen there, the wings only would snap at best when only hitting the Pentagon (since it wasn't a ground moving plane), leaving marks in the above floors of it, if not the so called holes. And the holes are in the lower floors... plain awkward. Or the Terrorist hi-jackers were talented pilots, wich they weren't proven by documentaries about the 9/11th. See now? From Physics point of view, that story is so reliable as Tooth Fairies are.
Sorry for me saying this, but the Devil's Advocate role won't be the best part for you to play in this thread at least.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by SpaceBoy2000 on 2005-03-08 at 21:45:19
Huh? Aluminium melts at 660.3 C. It can burn in relatively low heat compared to steel. Pure silica requires about 2000 C to melt.
Hmm, you you have the evidence to say that the plane's wings should have been able to take the impact with the ground and the main support beams of the building? Not just saying that "the wings SHOULD be tough", but rather, "the wings can take this much force, and only this much force was experienced by it".
Hmm, you you have the evidence to say that the plane's wings should have been able to take the impact with the ground and the main support beams of the building? Not just saying that "the wings SHOULD be tough", but rather, "the wings can take this much force, and only this much force was experienced by it".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-03-17 at 14:43:13
QUOTE(SpaceBoy)
Huh? Aluminium melts at 660.3 C. It can burn in relatively low heat compared to steel. Pure silica requires about 2000 C to melt.
Not quite. It's not pure and melts near the 1000-1100 ºC.
And the plane structure isn't made of alluminum, but steel alloys. Where are those, hmm? I sure didn't saw any of'em on the Pentagon structure. And the vapourized excuse won't cut it.
QUOTE(SpaceBoy)
Hmm, you you have the evidence to say that the plane's wings should have been able to take the impact with the ground and the main support beams of the building? Not just saying that "the wings SHOULD be tough", but rather, "the wings can take this much force, and only this much force was experienced by it".
Nope. Those resiliance/quality test reports are almost always kept within companies to prevent industrial spyonage. I know that 'cause of my safety reports to approve production lines for that unit in the same company's industrial park (had several others), when I worked at my country's Phillips.
But I'm almost sure that nothing not complying would be corrected (and or in worst cases dumped due to not being possible to fix). I've made it happen in different occasions when some posts of those lines didn't comply with ergonomics or even safety related legislation, such as light requirements for detailed tasks.
Planes are such a risky thing to put up in the air without abidding certain rules or even standards set by state organs or state trustworthy organizations (FAA, for example).
Heh, I can concede that can't access those quite easily. But I'll for sure keep at it when have got the time to properly search for those.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Clokr_ on 2005-03-17 at 15:23:19
My theory is that was Bush who fired vs the WTC and the pentagon, and then he went to attack iraq with the argument of the not-found mass destruction weapons just to get its oil.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-03-17 at 15:50:06
You just stated my belief on the subject.
I'm guessing it wasn't bush personally though, but government officials or some corporation backing them did it.
I'm guessing it wasn't bush personally though, but government officials or some corporation backing them did it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-03-17 at 19:55:01
QUOTE
"Of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But... it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from "Nuremberg Diary," by G. M. Gilbert.
- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from "Nuremberg Diary," by G. M. Gilbert.
Yeah, that sums it up.
(Yes, that was a stolen quote from Drunken's site. What are you going to do about it?)