Pentagon 9/11

[Parrot of doom]

I take conspiracy theories with a pinch of salt, but if any of the following vid is true, it does raise some rather interesting questions:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html#Preloader

 

[h00dlum]

posted 2 times already..

 

[CrazyHarij]

Wasn't it 3 times?

But yeah, it's a very interesting video. I wonder if it really is true.

 

[theGreenBunny]

Ah, this one again. Gives me a chance to post:

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

 

[dawdler]

Well all is true, question is whether the conclusion is correct. Personally I think it all makes sense, an aircraft should have caused much more collateral damage. But then again, how could you hide the victims of this? Where did the plane *actually* go, its not like it has vanished, or has it?

Another fun thing is the "marker" on the grass (can be seen in the flash, overhead view of pentagon), which was there before the crash, incidently pointing exactly in the line of the impact...

 

[AcousticToad]

Wasn't there a Boeing (Im not gonna go to the ranks of calling it a Boing like so many others ) That crashed the same day just outside Pennsylvania? Maybe that could have been the craft even though on the news it said it was an unrelated incident?

 

[clarky003]

Ah, this one again. Gives me a chance to post:

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

lol according to that the plane vaporised , lol. nice, somehow looking at most airplane crashes, i dont think so... and what about the people driving across the motorway that day. where are their accounts, was there a wake from the engine's...? too much doesnt add up in my opinion.

and those answer's to whats officially unkown (no video footage) are too coincidential.

 

[Kyorisu]

Well if the FBI released these apparent recordings everyone would be able to see what happened.

My guess is it would be upsetting to the public so they retained footage. I could be wrong though.

lol according to that the plane vaporised

Planes that hit the ground and slide along said ground for hundreds of metres will mostly remain intact. Howether A plane hitting several heavily reinforced walls will disintigrate. Ie even though both towers fell theres no obvious evidence of the planes carcass anywhere.

 

[dawdler]

Planes that hit the ground and slide along said ground for hundreds of metres will mostly remain intact. Howether A plane hitting several heavily reinforced walls will disintigrate. Ie even though both towers fell theres no obvious evidence of the planes carcass anywhere.

But how big of a chance is it that ALL of it dissintegrate? Plane crashes leaves TONS of debris scattered across a very large area.

 

[Kyorisu]

But how big of a chance is it that ALL of it dissintegrate? Plane crashes leaves TONS of debris scattered across a very large area.

If you stop quickly theres more damage. If you stop over time theres less damage.

I couldn't think of a simpler way to explain this.

 

[clarky003]

seriously a reinforced wall would of , if anything, deflected the caracass better, keeping larger pieces of debris on the outside, Ive never seen or thought a plane could dissintegrate completely and penetrate all those layers of the building. that's totally unbelievable.

if it was a 757, an amateur hijacking pilot would of also had to miss the freeway 'completely' flying low,, not damaging any cars in the wake.. perfectley lining up 2 to 3 feet off the ground missing the lawn entirely, and perfectley hitting the building's base.

amazing skill

 

[el Chi]

Everyone who gets on their tin foil hats for this one never answers these two questions:
"If it wasn't the US, why would they cover it up?"
"Why would the US attack the Pentagon?"

 

[clarky003]

sounds ridiculous, but let me give it a go,

answering both,

the corporation's dealing with oil are struggling with declining amounts of local oil, and its becoming too expensive to make good profit's using American oil, and oil out at sea,

a plan , through relations with George Bush Senior, and his son and the selected Bush administration,(sounds obserd, yes) abuse their power to desperately get what they need to make their buisness's survive and launch a missle after the impacts in New York,, to hit the pentagon, to make it seem like multiple targets are under attack, e.g more believable America is under attack.

plant the blame on Al queda for the pentagon strike (justification for war, US citizen's being outraged and demoralised) it back's and solidify's their cause to goto war on terroism (Bush targets emotional patriotic weakness's of US citizen's to strengthen his cause, by this time he believes himself , is doing no wrong), which on an alterior motive is also set up to obtain cheaper oil reserves from Iraq for the US future, and Corporate future , giving them comanding reserves for future production and profit.

although it seem's totally crazy, some people in this world, are Fked up.

remember the saying in buisness 'nice guys finish last'

 

[Kyorisu]

What Clarky003 implies is that flight never happened. So it must have been a smaller aircraft.

el Chi makes a good point, well the first question atleast. I'm Australian and yet nothing stops me driving a truck full of explosives into Adelaide. It could be an inside job. Heck it could be anything.

Stupid FBI confiscating recordings. Apparently some ppl watched a tape of it several times before the tape was confiscated. Why can't they tell us what happened?

 

[Direwolf]

Two things:
1. Why is everyone always suddenly an expert when this sort of thing comes up? Have you ever seen the wreckage of the two planes that hit the towers? Did the impact holes in those buildings look huge? Are we all of a sudden all crash investigators who know what it looks like when a plane hits a heavily reinforced building?
2. Edit: won't let me link to the picture. Its a phot of a piece of plane wreckage sitting on the pentagon lawn.

 

[Kyorisu]

Two things:
1. Why is everyone always suddenly an expert when this sort of thing comes up? Have you ever seen the wreckage of the two planes that hit the towers? Did the impact holes in those buildings look huge? Are we all of a sudden all crash investigators who know what it looks like when a plane hits a heavily reinforced building?
2. Edit: won't let me link to the picture. Its a phot of a piece of plane wreckage sitting on the pentagon lawn.

This is why I believe and yet don't believe the stories ppl are pumping out.

Now back to my gorging of power from my sci club members. Night all.

 

[A True Canadian]

If this is the pic that you guys are referring to, it was confirmed in the other thread that it is actually a piece of a helicopter from the nearby helicopter station. It doesn't appear the right shape, nor in the right condition to be from a 757.

 

[el Chi]

the corporation's dealing with oil are struggling with declining amounts of local oil, and its becoming too expensive to make good profit's using American oil, and oil out at sea,

a plan , through relations with George Bush Senior, and his son and the selected Bush administration,(sounds obserd, yes) abuse their power to desperately get what they need to make their buisness's survive and launch a missle after the impacts in New York,, to hit the pentagon, to make it seem like multiple targets are under attack, e.g more believable America is under attack.

plant the blame on Al queda for the pentagon strike (justification for war, US citizen's being outraged and demoralised) it back's and solidify's their cause to goto war on terroism (Bush targets emotional patriotic weakness's of US citizen's to strengthen his cause, by this time he believes himself , is doing no wrong), which on an alterior motive is also set up to obtain cheaper oil reserves from Iraq for the US future, and Corporate future , giving them comanding reserves for future production and profit.

Nonsense. I agree that the war on Iraq was basically for oil - yes it's good that we got rid of Saddam but we went there on false justifications and for all the wrong reasons. However after the WTC attacks, there is no way the US govt. needed any more justification whatsoever for this little "War on Terror" scheme.
The attack on the Pentagon doesn't get nearly as much recognition or representation in the media as the attacks on the Twin Towers. If you wanted, you could attribute this to the govt not wanting a focus on it in case people start to ask questions, but I'm just playing Devil's advocate there and I don't think that's the reason. The WTC attacks were simply more iconic and resulted in more deaths. Point is, that attack alone was enough to allow an understandable and not entirely unfair retaliation (even though it was a complete f*ck-up).

If the US govt. was going to do what is being suggested here, don't you think they would've been a bit more subtle about it by actually using a plane, rather than the missile suggested in these conspiracies?

Finally, your explanation for the other plane shot down being the real plane that supposedly flew into the Pentagon; it's an interesting one, but sadly it's full of holes. First off, that flight would have had its own flight number and passanger list, etc. The one that flew into the Pentagon would have had a different one and if the two correlated then it would be obvious that they lied. Plus, I'm sure you could find people who lost their family members in the plane crash on the Pentagon? How would you explain that?

There are certainly some interesting problems with the official account of events, but then there are also significantly compelling problems with the conspiracy. To be honest I'm not sure what to believe, but the lack of real answers to integral questions and ropey details in the conspiracies just detract hugely from their credibility.

 

[Baal]

Can we move this to the other topic, where I posted a more trustworthy resource on this topic?

lock please?

 

[clarky003]

Can we move this to the other topic, where I posted a more trustworthy resource on this topic?

lock please?

oh youd like that wouldnt you,

whats the deal..? you cant just request a lock

its called freedom of speech, everyone's opinion is valid here

 

[el Chi]

Well it's just that there are already 2/3 other discussions along the exact same lines and it's tidier to keep all the same debate in the same thread so that people aren't reiterating the same arguments and counters all over the place.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

No sense in there being so many threads dedicated to this.