Goverment lie's

[seinfeldrules]

Dont know if this has been posted, but it pretty much debunks the whole conspiracy idea.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Plus, the fire was around 800-900 degrees C. Aluminum melts at 660 degrees C. That could have something to do with there being little body left, I'm suprised none of you conspiracy theorists thought up that one. Wait, no I'm not.

 

[Baal]

Sorry to bring back this post, but I found a rather interesting site...rather interesting indeed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

That explanation of the fabricated video gives me shivers..so true.

The shadow...THE SHADOW!

 

[A True Canadian]

Sorry to bring back this post, but I found a rather interesting site...rather interesting indeed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

That explanation of the fabricated video gives me shivers..so true.

The shadow...THE SHADOW!

That's a great find Baal. :cheers:

The article clearly goes over the main pices of evidence that we have of the Pentagon attack, and analyzes each piece of evidence thoughrouly.

There is still a lot to be seen, and even more to be revealed. This is definately turing quite interesting. A 757 hit the Pentagon; Fact or Fiction? I don't know what to believe. :rolling:

The following conclusions made by the article:

1. The hole in the Pentagon wall appears to have been made by an aircraft, however, the hole is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757.
2. The damage to the Pentagon is about as extensive as one would expect from the crash of a large aircraft, although one that was somewhat smaller than a Boeing 757.
3. The public has absolutely no evidence that Boeing 757 debris has been recovered from the site.
4. The photos of "the explosion" of flight 77 are a complete and utter fabrication.
5. Why these photos were fabricated, who fabricated them, and why the media ran the story, remain a mystery.
6. Although, the middle level military are being honest about what happened on September 11, factions within the media are deliberately lying. The reasons for this are not clear.

And an attatched image of the damage with an inserted Boeing 757 for scale (also from the article) below:

 

[Baal]

It makes so much more sense than the flash video...Almost everything I've read on that site seems true...

Especially that video...can you say fake? So fake....

 

[A True Canadian]

The problem is that you can't really be sure what is real and what is fake now. Most of the evidence used earlier in this thread, to prove that the 757 actually hit the Pentagon, has been disproved. But there is still much evidence out there that suggest that a plane did hit.

Confusing, but at the same time, very intriguing.

 

[Baal]

Yes, I never believed the "missle" theory, but I thought something was a-miss.

 

[blahblahblah]

And an attatched image of the damage with an inserted Boeing 757 for scale (also from the article) below:

I'm no physicist, but I believe that this can be explained away by Newton's second law "an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force." That means the plane will still keep moving unless acted by an outside force.

Additionally, we have the law of momentum. Momentum is mass in motion. The equation for momentum is Momentum = Mass * Velocity. The higher the momentum for an object, the more force must be exerted on it to stop it.

This relates to the the plane crashing in the pentagon. Logically the plane has a huge mass and is traveling at a high velocity which means the object has a lot of momentum and will not stop easily even if it is acted upon a large force.

Since physics state that the plane will stay in motion until acted upon another force (the pentagon), and has alot of momentum, that means the plane should travel far into the pentagon (explaining the "exit wound" damage on the pentagon. Because of this momentum, the plane wants to keep moving at all costs. However, once the wings hit the pentagon, the plane wants to keep moving as fast as possible (Newton's second law), two things can happen. The wings can either fall off, or fold back in to the plane. The wings falling off defy the Newtons second law and the law of momentum. However, the folding back of the wings are allowed because the plane is trying to stay in motion to the best of its ability.

I hope this makes some sense. It does in my head at least. :rolling:

 

[ATI4EVER!]

Yeah the wing part confused me. The video was good. It wasnt bad. But the site really helps.

 

[fantasiser]

My personal opinion is that

i like the music they used on the flash animation,it was cool sounding

 

[A True Canadian]

I'm no physicist, but I believe that this can be explained away by Newton's second law "an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force." That means the plane will still keep moving unless acted by an outside force.

Additionally, we have the law of momentum. Momentum is mass in motion. The equation for momentum is Momentum = Mass * Velocity. The higher the momentum for an object, the more force must be exerted on it to stop it.

This relates to the the plane crashing in the pentagon. Logically the plane has a huge mass and is traveling at a high velocity which means the object has a lot of momentum and will not stop easily even if it is acted upon a large force.

Since physics state that the plane will stay in motion until acted upon another force (the pentagon), and has alot of momentum, that means the plane should travel far into the pentagon (explaining the "exit wound" damage on the pentagon. Because of this momentum, the plane wants to keep moving at all costs. However, once the wings hit the pentagon, the plane wants to keep moving as fast as possible (Newton's second law), two things can happen. The wings can either fall off, or fold back in to the plane. The wings falling off defy the Newtons second law and the law of momentum. However, the folding back of the wings are allowed because the plane is trying to stay in motion to the best of its ability.

I hope this makes some sense. It does in my head at least. :rolling:

That does make sense. The only problem is that the damage doesn't make sense. The 757 is too big and the damaged area is too small to work; especially at the presumed angle that it came in at (about 45 degrees).

Surely the wings must have done some damage to the outer wall. The force of the wings alone would have been enough to severly dig into the outer layer of the wall, but looking at the picture, there is little-to-no damage. A 757 couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, it must have been something smaller, hence the conspiracy.

 

[blahblahblah]

That does make sense. The only problem is that the damage doesn't make sense. The 757 is too big and the damaged area is too small to work; especially at the presumed angle that it came in at (about 45 degrees).

Surely the wings must have done some damage to the outer wall. The force of the wings alone would have been enough to severly dig into the outer layer of the wall, but looking at the picture, there is little-to-no damage. A 757 couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, it must have been something smaller, hence the conspiracy.

Don't forget that those are ariel photographs. You often loose critical details in a photograph. Especially ones that are of low resolution (like the ones we have seen in this thread) and are compressed (thank-you jpg compression). Not to mention details being lost because of the photographs being taken at certain angles.

In order to get a complete understanding of the crash site, one would have to see high-detailed aerial photographics and then reconcile them with physically being at the crash site. So many details can be lost or are not visible from the pictures we have.

Don't forget that this wasn't a clean accident. It didn't merely cut a clean hole in the pentagon for us to study. In addition to the plane crash, numerous fires broke out and caused a structural collapse of that section of the pentagon. You can't definetively say what happened to the plane because vital evidence collapsed after the crash.

To further complicate things, this section of the pentagon was designed to withstand a terrorist attack (features included kevlar windows, steel beams as a windows sill, and kevlar mesh in the walls to catch debris in case of a terrorist attack). Having a plane crash into this renovated part of the pentagon would likely have much different results if the plane had crashed into any other normal building.

 

[Kyorisu]

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

 

[clarky003]

Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?
> Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be glad to hear from you!

You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):
> If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!

the master of common sense has spoken.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Sorry to bring back this post, but I found a rather interesting site...rather interesting indeed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

That explanation of the fabricated video gives me shivers..so true.

The shadow...THE SHADOW!

Its a good read, but like most conspiracy theories tends to omit some obvious questions, especially with regard to the security camera footage:

1) Date stamp - how accurate is your VCR clock?
2) Shadow outline - cheap CCDS produce this halo effect when scanning from bright areas to dark areas. Its a well known artefact, on broadcast cameras the halo is usually dark blue. Also, jpeg compression is hardly lossless.
3) Heliport control tower - the author seems to forget about lens flare, which is clearly visible
4) The camera is most likely recording at NTSC 30fps, the author is confusing frame count with second count. The time stamp shows hours, minutes, seconds, and not minutes, seconds, frames.

 

[Baal]

hahahaha Parrot, I was going to post the exact same thing in response to the time stamp..That's awesome.

But, even if the video isn't fake, it doesn't matter really....because the plane still looks wrong....it looks too small, as well the angle in which it hit looks wrong.

Not mentioning the damage it did.

 

[clarky003]

I have to agree with Baal, its an odd shape, nothing remotely like a 757.

 

[Baal]

Also the whole plane dropping off the radar for a while, then coming back before it hits...

Ahhhh there's just too much that doesn't add up in my opinion.

And Clarky, I just looked at the other thread you posted in (Pentagon 9/11), it's not that I didn't agree with anyone there, it's just that there was already a topic for it, and a new link, that in my opinion has a lot more truth in it. But the Flash video was very good as well, just has some fallacies/problems in it.

 

[The Monkey]

Whenever something big happens it is a conspiracy, The Roswell-crash was an UFO, JFK were killed by the CIA, the moonlanding -69 never occured, the 9/11 attacks were goverment made, etc. What's next?

 

[Baal]

The whole thing may not have been, but the Pengtagon is fishy.

 

[ATI4EVER!]

Don't forget that those are ariel photographs. You often loose critical details in a photograph. Especially ones that are of low resolution (like the ones we have seen in this thread) and are compressed (thank-you jpg compression). Not to mention details being lost because of the photographs being taken at certain angles.

In order to get a complete understanding of the crash site, one would have to see high-detailed aerial photographics and then reconcile them with physically being at the crash site. So many details can be lost or are not visible from the pictures we have.

or be at the site. like me.

 

[waedoe]

acctually here are all the facts it was a plane

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

 

[Jammydodger]

Any 1 see conspiracy theorys on sky 1 tonight in the uk?
It covered most of the stuff we been talking about here.
Good watch.

 

[Baal]

I don't live in the UK..So no

What kind of things were they saying exactly?