Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

On 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a . missle?

  1. Aug 31, 2004 #1

    Cod

    User Avatar

    On 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a ..... missle?!?

    You tell me: http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

    Now, I agree that this could be just another one of those "conspiracy" movies put together by abunch of those who are against the American government. However, I feel like everyone should at least watch this movie and voice their opinion.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 31, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Did you notice the pics near the beginning that show a nearly intact building with a small hole as evidence that it wasn't a plane - then pics later showing the real damage, which was quite extensive? Strange discrepancy...

    Did you see the part where it says that planes leave wreckage and then shows a pic of a black stain on the ground with no discernable wreckage?

    Also, a lot of earwitnesses said something like 'it sounded like a missile.' I'm wondering how many of them have actually ever heard a missile.

    No, sorry, its conspiracy theory.

    edit: HERE is an interesting site with pics I've never seen before including pics of airplane debris (albeit small pieces) and cars on the nearby highway damaged when the plane's wings sheared off light poles as it flew over.

    edit2: More
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2004
  4. Aug 31, 2004 #3
    is there any way i could play this on windows media player or something? i want to be able to use some kind of search function.

    i thought it was kind of cool with the sounds track and all but i dont think its all that accurate. the idea of all those surveillance cameras having footage of the object but being censored is something i dont buy, i dont think the plane would be flying that low for that long to have been caught on all of them. where would this missile have come from? who (with missiles that big) would use one and not be retaliated against? would a missile with a payload that big not impact more on a vertical then a horizontal? who are these people being quoted? why is skarlet quoted as saying "buildings dont eat planes. that plane, it just vanished. there should have been parts on the ground... where are the parts?"?? maybe it wasnt a Boeing 747, maybe it was another plane but i dont know a lot about analyzing crash wreckage (i figured that the meteor that killed the dinos would still be a giant lump surrounded by a crater someplace but it turns out not) and the people who were doing the pentagon crash were among the best in the world, i bet. it may sounds naive but i think ill put my trust in them knowing what their talking about
     
  5. Aug 31, 2004 #4

    Cod

    User Avatar

    Like I said in my original post, I'm not buying the conspiracy or selling it. Because I've seen evidence pointing both directions; however, I'd like the "conspiracists" to explain the death of all those people on that day.

    BTW, Devil, the soundtrack is from Fight Club. And the last song is Marylin Manson singing "This Is The New S%it".
     
  6. Aug 31, 2004 #5

    Gza

    User Avatar

    I don't really get the message the animation is trying to imply. Are they saying that one of *our* missles hit the pentagon, and the government is trying to cover it up? That sounds a bit silly.
     
  7. Aug 31, 2004 #6

    Cod

    User Avatar

    Whoever is behind the animation doesn't really make it clear about where the "object" came from. They just believe its a missle or a smaller plane. And I saw these links on another forum I frequent:

    http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
    http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html (very detailed slide show)


    Also, check out the movie Painful Deceptions - An Analysis of the 9/11 Attack. Movie explains a lot of stuff in-depth about the Pentagon attacks. Here's a link to it: http://www.prisonplanet.com/121203painfuldeceptions.html . The movie also goes into the chemistry and physics of the attacks.
     
  8. Aug 31, 2004 #7
    The only thing I find odd about the Pentagon attacks is the lack of videos. If the reports are true that FBI agents took tapes from video surveillance systems from a nearby hotel and gas station that would have captured the attack, why haven't they been released?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2004
  9. Aug 31, 2004 #8

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah - Where was f$*king Michael Moore when we needed him?

    Duh! 'Cause the gas station and the hotel captured them?

    Sniffing something, or the real you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2004
  10. Aug 31, 2004 #9
    Geniere, I have no idea what you’re trying to argue.
     
  11. Aug 31, 2004 #10

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "Great story Grandpa. Could have used a vampire, though."

    From what I saw, every bit of evidence in that film could also be used to prove that no airplanes hit the WTC. All of the same "evidence" is true for those collisions, which we all saw to be Boeing 757's hitting large buildings.
     
  12. Sep 1, 2004 #11
    Not to be a bastard, but it was actually two 767s that hit the WTC.
     
  13. Sep 1, 2004 #12

    Cod

    User Avatar

    I believe you're getting confused between the two theories.

    First off, they aren't denying that planes hit the WTC towers; however, the people behind all these theories are proving (using chemistry) that explosives actually detonated upon impact of the airplanes and the explosives are what caused the towers to come crumbling down. If you watch the 40-minute long video, the first 10-minutes or so talk about the difference from the flames of a vehicle fire and the flames of an explosive.

    Now, as far as the Pentagon is concerned, there are numerous theories as to what hit the Pentagon on that dreadful day. But one thing has be proven time and time again.....it wasn't a Boeing 757. Either it was a Golden Hawk, missle (I don't believe the missle theory personally), or a smaller plane of some sort.
     
  14. Sep 1, 2004 #13

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Check – You stated ‘a nearby hotel and gas station that would have captured the tapes.’ I don’t know why the gas station or hotel would want to capture the tapes but it’s a strange world.

    So… if the hotel captured the tapes than the FBI could not release them

    However since you used the qualifier “if” I could have assumed the FBI had rescued the tapes from the sinister hands of the gas station and hotel. Having custody of the tapes the FBI would preserve the evidence. Evidence need not always be available to the general public.

    In other words I’m just funning with you. I know you meant, “capture the image of the plane”, or something similar.

    In my opinion it’s a well deserved chiding as conspiracy theories abound and usually are not worth accelerating electrons.
     
  15. Sep 1, 2004 #14

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You may have missed the point of my post. What I'm saying is that the "proof" that it was not a large airplane that hit the Pentagon can also be applied to the WTC massacre. If the proof were indeed valid proof, then it would also be valid proof that the WTC was not hit by large aircraft (because the ground was not messed up, and there is no visable reckage, etc.). Since we know that the Trade Center was hit by large aircraft, we know that the proof is not valid.
     
  16. Sep 1, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought you said above you didn't buy into the conspiracy theories?
     
  17. Sep 1, 2004 #16

    Cod

    User Avatar

    What do you mean the ground wasn't messed up? The entire street was broken to peices all around the towers because of all that landed on it. Let's be honest though, to hit a building at the ground floor and not mess up the ground with a plane that big (supposedly), it would have to be a perfect smash; however, even with a perfect hit, the ground would be burnt to shreds.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2004
  18. Sep 1, 2004 #17

    Cod

    User Avatar

    Hasn't nothing to do with "buying into" a conspiracy theory. I'm just using common sense. The theories says that the government is covering up all the evidence. I'm just saying the plane wasn't a 757 by looking at the given evidence. Because a 757 is around 40-50' in height (not sure exactly) and the Pentagon is 74' tall (exactly). Yet, only the first 2 floors were hit by the plane? Common sense tells you that's impossible unless there is a massive crater in the ground from where the plane would of hit also if it was that low. Are you going to tell me the Pentagon floors are all 12' tall? I highly doubt they are, though I could be wrong.

    I don't believe the missle theory at all. I just don't think a 757 is what hit the Pentagon.
     
  19. Sep 1, 2004 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Fair enough. Usually though, saying you don't buy into a conspiracy theory implies that you accept the conventional explanation.
    Several big problems here:

    First, its easy enough to find out how big a 757 is. Clearly, this is an issue to you - why haven't you checked? A 757 is 44 feet tall including the landing gear http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

    Second, common sense? The worst thing you can do here is rely on your common sense. In fact, thats the main problem with conspiracy theorists: instead of actually learning how things work, they rely on preconcieved notions of how they think things should work. The TD and Relativity forums are full of people who think Relativity is wrong because it conflicts with their preconceptions. Don't make assumptions, don't follow your logic: find out how things really work.

    Third: 12 feet would be awful small for a building's floor to floor height. That's your preconceptions getting in the way again. Commercial buildings are rarely anything less than 15' floor to floor. Remember, not only do commercial buildings generally have higher ceilings than residences, they also need space for structural support and services (I'm constantly fighting with architects to get more space to put my ductwork in) - and this is the Pentagon, a building designed with nuclear survivability in mind. I design air conditioning systems for buildings: for one recent commercial buidling (nowhere near the size of the Pentagon), the main air conditioning supply duct was more than four feet high. Also, don't assume the ground floor is at ground level - it rarely is.

    Put all that together and there is plenty of room for a 757 to hit just the first and second floor - even if it weren't decending, which it was; even if it didn't belly-flop short of the building, which it might have; even if it didn't come apart on impact (making that tail a lot shorter than 40 feet), which it likely did; and even if the aluminum structure of the upper vertical stabilizer could have cut into a building at its strongest point (the beams holding up the floor) without shattering, which it couldn't have.
    I don't think you are being reasonable in that assessment. Not only is the evidence for it quite overwhealming, the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists is obviously flawed - much even appears purposely deceptive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2004
  20. Sep 1, 2004 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    More: According to THIS site, the Pentagon is more than 77 feet high, not 74 feet. With 4 floors above ground (its 5 including the basement), and a floor to floor height larger from the 1st to second floors than the rest (you can see that in the photos), it could easily be 40 feet from the ground to the 3rd floor.
     
  21. Sep 1, 2004 #20
    I thought one of the planes that crashed into an open field on 911, didnt leave any rubble behind either, that it was vaporized.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: On 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a . missle?
  1. 9/11; who cares! (Replies: 39)

  2. Pentagon Strike 9-11 (Replies: 2)

Loading...