[ambush]

This movie sums it up pretty well

http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html

Thoughts?

Please no sarcastic "yeah.. next thing you're going to say it that we did not walk on the moon"

try to take an objective look.

[John F. Smith]

I hope I'm the first with the tinfoil hat post

[TailsToo]

2nd!

[ambush]

bad... watch the movie...

where did the boeing go? the lawn is totally intact!

[MacMan4000]

old news. already been posted at least once... maybe twice. might have been in the art/design forum though... not sure.

<EDIT> here it is:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...gon+conspiracy
and here:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ighlight=flash

[Zimphire]

Some people want to believe any idiotic conspiracy theory they read. Esp if it's about America.

This was going around right after it happened. It was debunked a few times shortly after.

Surprised to see it raring itself back on the net.

[Joshua]

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by ambush:
bad... watch the movie...

where did the boeing go? the lawn is totally intact!

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[george68]

I watched it. I'm pretty disturbed. I see no wreckage from a plane in any of those pictures.... I'm going to google to see if I can find any.

- Rob

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

See, sometimes he is useful.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Dammit, when are people going to stop ignoring the Acme Laws of Physics�? According to Coyote�s Law; when an object traveling at high velocity strikes a solid barrier, the object will not break up, nor disintegrate in accordance with its own lesser mass compared to the more solid barrier; rather the object will leave a hole in exactly the same shape as itself.


Sheesh. Next thing you know, folks will be trying to say that when a person is pushed off a cliff, one DOESN�T actually stay rooted in mid-air, and have time to pull out a sign that says �UH OH!� before falling!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by george68:
I watched it. I'm pretty disturbed. I see no wreckage from a plane in any of those pictures.... I'm going to google to see if I can find any.

- Rob

Don't bother. Just read the snopes link.

[Rev-O]

Here's another wack.

Listened to this guy on the radio. He put forth one of the most disjointed and convoluted arguements I've heard. Any self respecting paranoid conspiracy theorist would've said "Oh, come now. That's a bit far fetched."

IIRC he has the US government secretly landing the planes before they hit the World Trade Centers, offloading and killing all the passengers, then either remote controlling them or kamikaze Airforce piloting them into the Twin Towers.

[TheBadgerHunter]

I can see why people would think that it was a fake. But lets look at the facts:

a) Something hit the pentagon. Something reasonably big and carrying fuel. Something with poor enough strength as to explode ON CONTACT.

So it wasn't a missile and it had to have been fairly big. 757 fits right now.

b) A 757 carries a lot of fuel in the wings. However the damage is almost entirely centered on a fairly small area but there IS damage where the wings would have been. This fits.

c) It made a large hole. Judinging by the strength of the building its not surprising that the wreckage only went in so far and made literally a hole. Add that with the fuel and a large area INSIDE would have been destroyed. This fits.

And as for the pilots having no skill, people saying it sounded like a rocket, all circumstantial. There is no reason why it WASN'T so we stick with the explanation that fits the facts. Unfortunately its all to easy to delude people either way.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't bother. Just read the snopes link.

Well, that snopes link does raise some serious questions:

From the snopes link
the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

So, in simple words, the plane crashed in the grass before the Pentagon, then bounced off the ground to hit between the first and second floor ? And all that without leaving marks on the grass ?

Rrrrrriiiiggghhtttt !

-t

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
Here's another wack.

Listened to this guy on the radio. He put forth one of the most disjointed and convoluted arguements I've heard. Any self respecting paranoid conspiracy theorist would've said "Oh, come now. That's a bit far fetched."

IIRC he has the US government secretly landing the planes before they hit the World Trade Centers, offloading and killing all the passengers, then either remote controlling them or kamikaze Airforce piloting them into the Twin Towers.

OMG its so simple. No, wait, its actually needlessly complicated. Why not just pay some arabs to do it?

I'm sure if the US wanted to do something like that they could do a bit better than that. I mean how hard would it be for them to get a 747 instead of stealing one?

[george68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't bother. Just read the snopes link.

I did, but it doesn't seem that convincing. The lawn looks FINE in some of the pictures, and what I find really odd is how people describe it as a small plane..... and the footage from the pentagaon. That does NOT look like a 757. I'd like more shots, but he FBI has confiscated everything else.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Well, that snopes link does raise some serious questions:



So, in simple words, the plane crashed in the grass before the Pentagon, then bounced off the ground to hit between the first and second floor ? And all that without leaving marks on the grass ?

Rrrrrriiiiggghhtttt !

-t

Agreed. You're far more useful here than telling people they should be happy with 4 yr old video cards.

- Rob

[turtle777]

Originally posted by george68:
Agreed. You're far more useful here than telling people they should be happy with 4 yr old video cards.

- Rob

Sorry for being useful

-t

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
OMG its so simple. No, wait, its actually needlessly complicated. Why not just pay some arabs to do it?

I'm sure if the US wanted to do something like that they could do a bit better than that. I mean how hard would it be for them to get a 747 instead of stealing one?

But doing something the simple way would ruin so many poorly concieved and needlessly convoluted conspiracy theories! Shush! Enough of that talk! And no bringing up Occam's Razor!

[demograph68]

Damn.... I wanted to post the pic from Citizen Kang of the UFO hitting the capitol building, but I can't find it. (from Simpsons Halloween Special)

[turtle777]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Damn.... I wanted to post the pic from Citizen Kang of the UFO hitting the capitol building, but I can't find it. (from Simpsons Halloween Special)

Yep. That'll fit right in the category of a 757 hitting the Pentagon !

-t

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Shame the pilot died in that crash, he was incredibly skilled to fly 3 feet off the ground for so long and hit the target bang on.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Shame the pilot died in that crash, he was incredibly skilled to fly 3 feet off the ground for so long and hit the target bang on.

-t

[george68]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Shame the pilot died in that crash, he was incredibly skilled to fly 3 feet off the ground for so long and hit the target bang on.

And apparently dodging all the wires and telephone/light poles too!

He was so good he not only made his 757 perform like a fighter, but look like one too!

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Okay... problems....
"The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles."

1. I see no clipped light poles or telephone poles whatsoever. This is a topic taht's been discussed and nobody has seen ANY that were ever broken.

"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"

2. This does not make ANY ****ing sense at all. NONE. Okay, I understand that the main fuselage is NOT an extremely strong unbreakable cylinder. In comparison to the reinforced concrete, it was probably actually pretty weak. Hence, upon impact at over 400mph, it is NOT going to send a huge jolt through the rest of the plain, creating enough force to shear off the wings.... it's going to crumple up like a tin can and explode. BUT, just for arguements sake, let's say the fuselage WAS strong and DID send enough of a shock to shear the wings off....there is NO WAY the wings are going to fold forward and inward and go INTO the hole made by the nose. NO ****ING WAY. Why? The plane is traveling 400mph. By the time the wings even had time to shear off most of the plane would have hit the wall already. That is a DAMN high velocity.

The thing that bothers me is the video footage. That doesn't look like an airliner AT ALL. NOt even close. Even one traveling at 400mph. It's so small. The first accounts all referred to it as a 8-12 passenger plane that sounded like a high pitched fighter jet. 757s do not sound like fighter jets, nor can they manuver between lampposts, nor are they easy to fly 3 ft off the ground.

More later.

- Rob

[george68]

k... the size of the hole. WAY too small. If a 757 hit it, the hole should be bigger.

- Rob

[Captain Obvious]

OK well when we have a structural engineer and a physicist with the background information on the two objects necessary to assess the claims then we'll talk. Right now the word of a dental hygienist and two homosexual computer techs from Canada are not really a compelling source of credibility.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Dammit, when are people going to stop ignoring the Acme Laws of Physics�? According to Coyote�s Law; when an object traveling at high velocity strikes a solid barrier, the object will not break up, nor disintegrate in accordance with its own lesser mass compared to the more solid barrier; rather the object will leave a hole in exactly the same shape as itself.

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that ...

[demograph68]

Originally posted by george68:
k... the size of the hole. WAY too small. If a 757 hit it, the hole should be bigger.

Even if you're on to something, what then? It's fun to have an imagination but this'll lead nowhere!

[george68]

This pretty much has all of my arguments in it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ns/damage.html

The central impact hole has a smaller diameter than a 757 fuselage.

The damage on either side of the central hole is not consistent with the damage expected by the engines of a 757.

The facade shows no impression of the wings or vertical stabilizer of a 757.

The single hole through the C-ring of the building suggests a single-engine attack plane.

The lawn outside the damaged facade shows no signs of gouging.

Objects in the flightpath outside the building were apparently not disturbed.

[george68]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
OK well when we have a structural engineer and a physicist with the background information on the two objects necessary to assess the claims then we'll talk. Right now the word of a dental hygienist
.

Hey look it's **** face who's once again.... drumroll.. completely wrong in all his assumptions about me! I've never been a dental hygenienist, moron.

Anyway, you don't have to have a degree in ANYTHING to realize the size of the damage is all wrong, they only found ONE engine, and the engine they did find was along the central LINE of damage, which suggests it was a SINGLE ENGINED PLANE, with the engine located CENTRALLY.

- Rob

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by george68:
This pretty much has all of my arguments in it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ns/damage.html

The central impact hole has a smaller diameter than a 757 fuselage.

The damage on either side of the central hole is not consistent with the damage expected by the engines of a 757.

The facade shows no impression of the wings or vertical stabilizer of a 757.

The single hole through the C-ring of the building suggests a single-engine attack plane.

The lawn outside the damaged facade shows no signs of gouging.

Objects in the flightpath outside the building were apparently not disturbed.

I know I changed from Engineering to Business pretty quick but aren't the diameter of bullet holes smaller than the bullets because of the heat, speed, and force of impact?

Wouldn't the size and depth (into the ground) of the Pentagon cause the wings to shear off since the force behind them is so much less then the body of the plane?

And isn't the trajectory of a plane much more varied because of the wings and its ability to maneuver then compared to say a missile? So it wouldn't have to be as linear.

So I would say, yeah you would need a degree in something pretty advanced to consider all the factors that go into a plane crash. And given that the building it hit was not an ordinary structure it would help to have a couple of advanced degrees not just a driver's license and the ability to carry dental xrays to and from the lab.

[york28]

Physics of 911 has some pretty scary information, assuming that it is correct, which I can not be sure of.

And before I get called a wacko, I'd like to point out that there are a lot of suspicious circumstances regarding what went on, and if you are unwilling to question the official verdict that was given to you by the same government that has been twisting words beyond any resemblance of reality for the last four years, then you're asking to be lied to.

It could be a fake, yes. But what if it's not? Until I see actual, scientific proof that what I'm told happened actually did, I will continue to weight other options. (And I believe that it is impossible for the most part for wings to "fold up" into an airplane. Compare the strength of a wing to that of an airplane body and see.) Of course, if the videos we've seen are incriminating, why are we seeing them at all? Surely the government would have had a handle on this footage too....

Have you ever tried to make a cell phone call from the air? I know a pilot, that flies a Cessna, which goes up to 12-15,000 feet I believe, and he can't get a signal once he gets off the ground. You make your own interpretations, but it smells fishy to me.

So we really don't know for sure. But don't blindly defend your party line when you have no factual basis for that opinion. I love Bush defenders, because they never know that they've been fed misinformation.

Off to the political lounge the thread goes....

[york28]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
I know I changed from Engineering to Business pretty quick but aren't the diameter of bullet holes smaller than the bullets because of the heat, speed, and force of impact?

Wouldn't the size and depth (into the ground) of the Pentagon cause the wings to shear off since the force behind them is so much less then the body of the plane?

And isn't the trajectory of a plane much more varied because of the wings and its ability to maneuver then compared to say a missile? So it wouldn't have to be as linear.

I think that there is a pretty big difference between an airplane hitting a building, and a bullet striking a foreign body. But I guess I don't really know.

And yes, the wings would shear off, but no one's seen them since they supposedly did.

[george68]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
I know I changed from Engineering to Business pretty quick but aren't the diameter of bullet holes smaller than the bullets because of the heat, speed, and force of impact?

Sure, to some degree. But I don't think any amount of heat, 400mph, and all that mass is going to shrink by an amazing degree. Look at the pics. The width of a 757's fusealge is MUCH MUCH MUCH wider than the damage on the pentagon.

Wouldn't the size and depth (into the ground) of the Pentagon cause the wings to shear off since the force behind them is so much less then the body of the plane?

Well.... I don't know for sure. But I can guess. My guess is NO, or ALMOST no. The thing is traveling 400+ mph. The wing tips are traveling 0mph in relation to the fuselage. Okay, so the nosecone hits the wall....what happens.... I would say that that speed, the nose cone is already disintegrating, the fuselage is crumpling..... and yes, the wings would START to sheer off. However, they (the wings) are still traveling at over 400mph, and they'd have to run into the pentagon's facade WELL before they had a chance to fold inwards and go into the same impossibly small hole the rest of the plane apparently went into.

And isn't the trajectory of a plane much more varied because of the wings and its ability to maneuver then compared to say a missile? So it wouldn't have to be as linear.

HhahahAhhaHahA. NO. Missiles are MUCH more manuverable than planes. They're lighter, have less mass, no pilots to worry about...they're EXTREMELY manuverable.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ns/q0158.shtml

Anyway, I'm not saying a missile hit the building. All I know is that from what I've seen and read tonight, I do not think it was 757.

- Rob

[george68]

http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=3

There's my wing arguement backed up by scientists with real degrees, so you can kiss my ass.

- Ca$h

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by york28:
I think that there is a pretty big difference between an airplane hitting a building, and a bullet striking a foreign body. But I guess I don't really know.

And yes, the wings would shear off, but no one's seen them since they supposedly did.

But that's the thing. They are also very rigid at the same time so while they would shear off they may very well collapse inward and disintegrate into the body of the plane.

Anyway, I got bored with engineering and you aren't smart enough to know much more than what you read on conspiracy sites. When you can bring in people who have an actual degree in the fields of study we're discussing then it might shed some more legitimate arguments. Again, everyone here piping in = not knowledgeable enough to discern the facts. Cash particularly, he's really dumb. I mean moron is a compliment at this point.

Yes, dumbass the people who write for physics911 are going to back up your theory. You just worry about getting those dentures to Mr Jones by 10 AM tomorrow.

[PacHead]

Sorry, but anybody who believes this crap is a gullible retard.

As if you people are rocket scientists or something.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Lets say it is true, why would they do it?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Lets say it is true, why would they do it?

I would like to know what happened to all the passengers ?

I mean all those families who lost relatives. Since they obviously were never on that tiny plane, where did they all go ?

Does this conspiracy theory involve thousands of evil people all plotting together ?

[philzilla]

you mean... the american government could be lying to its people? *gasp* shocking! unheard of! next thing, you'll be trying to tell me Oswald didn't kill JFK!

[george68]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
But that's the thing. They are also very rigid at the same time so while they would shear off they may very well collapse inward and disintegrate into the body of the plane.
.

The plane is moving at over 400mph. Dude. Drive your car 60mph into a fence. With all your doors open. Know what'll happen? The doors will hit the fence, and you will not only destroy the fence where your bumper is, but you will also destroy it where your doors were located. There is NO TIME for them for them to fold FORWARD and INWARDS (they would not do that anyway) into the impossibly small hole.

Finally:



THat's right next to the main hole. Notice the windows are not even broken. The wing/engine SHOULD have hit this.

- Rob

PS: Oh ****! It's captain obvious! I forgot, he's smarter than all of those aeronautical engineers, physicists, and mathmaticians... know why? BECUASE CAPTAIN OBVIOUS IS THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE WHOLE WORLD AND HE"S BETTER THAN ANYONE AT ANYTHING.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by george68:
I watched it. I'm pretty disturbed. I see no wreckage from a plane in any of those pictures.... I'm going to google to see if I can find any.

- Rob

You're going to find one or two photo's with a (one!) wheel and a piece of a small motor that convinced the gullible masses that it was a plane after all. Nothing else.

It really amazes me:

a) that there's people actually believing that a 757 hit that building.
b) people resist and refuse the truth so fiercely.

The freedom of your country is at stake, americans! Why do you accept that story 'as is' and don't question it any further, demand nothing, do nothing. Afraid people will call you names? will think you are unpatriotic? There's some big names in your history that will call YOU unpatriotic for being a couch-potato now!

It seems a mirror image of how the German people behaved in say 1937. The contours of very ominous things where clearly there, but people just gazed over it as if it just wasn't there.

demand those fscking tapes, make them tell the truth! Is that so bleeding hard?

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
But that's the thing. They are also very rigid at the same time so while they would shear off they may very well collapse inward and disintegrate into the body of the plane.

'Disintegrate' as in a david copperfield trick? Yeah, very obvious indeed...

[Spheric Harlot]

It is painful to watch this idiocy unfurl for the dozenth time.

-s*

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Lets say it is true, why would they do it?

Cuz they had surplus UFOs kicking around Area 51. So they decide to spike one into the pentagon, and blame it on a hijacked 757. But, just to really sell the story, they remote piloted two other jumbos into the twin towers, and corkscrewed another one into the ground.

I mean, c'mon, how else do you get rid of extra UFOs?

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It is painful to watch this idiocy unfurl for the dozenth time.

-s*

All i can say is: Indeed it is...

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Lets say it is true, why would they do it?

First find out what really happened. The trouble with those conspiracy sites is that they try to answer their own questions. All those theories are almost certainly wrong, the truth might be a tad more mundane. Trouble is, the fact that the conspiracy theories might prove to be wrong still doesn't invalidate the questions they're based on.

Western society is so good that this strategy: If you can discredit the person who asks the questions, you suddenly get away with not answering it, however valid it might have been. Silly...

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by gerbnl:
'Disintegrate' as in a david copperfield trick? Yeah, very obvious indeed...

Just when I thought Ca$h was the biggest moron in the forum you come out...

4 planes did not land on September 11, 2001.
Why don't you tell us where each ended up if one didn't crash in NoVA