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

[Cod]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[devil-fire]

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 don't think its all that accurate. the idea of all those surveillance cameras having footage of the object but being censored is something i don't buy, i don't 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 don't 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 don't 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

 

[Cod]

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".

 

[Gza]

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.

 

[Cod]

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.

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.

 

[check]

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?

 

[GENIERE]

The only thing I find odd about the Pentagon attacks is the lack of videos.

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

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 tapes, why haven't they been released?

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

Sniffing something, or the real you?

 

[check]

Geniere, I have no idea what you’re trying to argue.

 

[LURCH]

"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.

 

[check]

which we all saw to be Boeing 757's hitting large buildings.

Not to be a bastard, but it was actually two 767s that hit the WTC.

 

[Cod]

"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.

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.

 

[GENIERE]

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.

 

[LURCH]

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

First off, they aren't denying that planes hit the WTC towers; ...

...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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

I thought you said above you didn't buy into the conspiracy theories?

 

[Cod]

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.

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.

 

[Cod]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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

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.

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, that's 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 believe the missle theory at all. I just don't think a 757 is what hit the Pentagon.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

More: According to http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm 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.

 

[studentx]

I thought one of the planes that crashed into an open field on 911, didnt leave any rubble behind either, that it was vaporized.

 

[russ_watters]

Not vaporized, just disintegrated. A "high energy" crash like that makes for very small pieces of wreckage. Not much that's identifiable as a plane - especially after a fire. http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=94

 

[Adam]

Why do people have the idea that "conspiracy = unreal or unlikely"? Ever hear of Watergate? The Iran-Contra Affair? The V2 bomb? X and Y Zigzag Plans? The GT-1300? The Official Secrets Act? ;) Conspiracies and secrets are going on all the time, all around the world. The brain-dead assertion that "conspiracy or conspiracy-claim = unreal" is pathetic.

Why would a large number of deaths in any way negate a conspiracy? Hitler tried to cover the truth of the death camps from various people. Does that mean they didn't happen?

 

[Cod]

Why do people have the idea that "conspiracy = unreal or unlikely"? Ever hear of Watergate? The Iran-Contra Affair? The V2 bomb? X and Y Zigzag Plans? The GT-1300? The Official Secrets Act? ;) Conspiracies and secrets are going on all the time, all around the world. The brain-dead assertion that "conspiracy or conspiracy-claim = unreal" is pathetic.

Why would a large number of deaths in any way negate a conspiracy? Hitler tried to cover the truth of the death camps from various people. Does that mean they didn't happen?

Very good points Adam.

 

[wasteofo2]

Russ, I seeing the footage of the planes crashing into the WTC (as I'm sure everyone here has), you see a HUGE explosion upon impact, and (I'm estimating here), flames consuming around 20 floors after impact. How do you explain this huge explosion upon impact with the WTC, but this very minimal explosion, minimal fire damage, and very small holes punched through only 3 consecutive walls?

And to those who believe it was something like a fighter jet, why would the Govt. cover that up?

 

[check]

I’m no structural engineer, it’d be nice if we had one on the board to answer this, but here’s my thinking:

The pentagon walls are very thick and dense. In the WTC, the outer walls provided structural support for the buildings. They were made of steel lattice pieces that were riveted together. As such, they were fairly easy to knock out. Once the building lost the support of the outer walls, it was unable to hold itself together and thus collapsed.

The Pentagon, on the other hand, was made of dense concrete, much more difficult to punch a hole through. Also, the ground probably absorbed much of the energy of the impact of the 757.

An additional note: 767s (those that crashed into the WTC) can carry a maximum of 23,940 gallons of fuel while 757s (one that crashed into the pentagon) can carry 11,276 gallons. It’s estimated that the planes that crashed into the WTC had more than 10,000 gallons left in them while the one that crashed into the pentagon had a little less than 6,000 gallons left.

Anyway, I think that probably explains it at least a bit. If I’m wrong about anything, please let me know.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What happened to the people that were on the original 757. I think their loved ones are going to notice that they aren't coming home nights.

Let me guess: Bermuda triangle.

 

[russ_watters]

Very good points Adam.

So, conspiracies exist, therefore this event must have been a conspiracy? No, Cod, that doesn't address this event at all.

Russ, I seeing the footage of the planes crashing into the WTC (as I'm sure everyone here has), you see a HUGE explosion upon impact, and (I'm estimating here), flames consuming around 20 floors after impact. How do you explain this huge explosion upon impact with the WTC, but this very minimal explosion, minimal fire damage, and very small holes punched through only 3 consecutive walls?

I think that's a scale issue. The WTC is taller and skinnier, making the explosions look bigger. IIRC, the planes hit the 78th and 90th floors. The photos and USA Today link on THIS site show maybe 8 floors affected with a hole covering only two (though the second hit at a steep angle). THIS site has some good pictures of the holes.

Also, remember that the Pentagon is wide. It may not look like the plane went that far through, but it did. And that's 3 rings - 6 structural walls plus whatever is inside the building.

 

[Adam]

So, conspiracies exist, therefore this event must have been a conspiracy?

Not at all. I merely point out that dismissing the conspiracy idea in the manner it has been dismissed is pathetic and ridiculous.

 

[russ_watters]

Not at all. I merely point out that dismissing the conspiracy idea in the manner it has been dismissed is pathetic and ridiculous.

I addressed the actual arguments directly. How else should I approach this specific theory about this specific event?

 

[Adam]

Tinfoil hat.

 

[Outcast]

Lets just put it this way, these videos and web sites, raise some very disturbing questions that the Government is not addressing. The Government only makes it worse my seizing all the video takes and not releasing them.

The same thing happened in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Government seized all the video tapes and have not released them. There is an Iraq connection to the Oklahoma City bombing that the Government is covering up.

 

[Smurf]

Tinfoil hat.

Tinfoil hat?

 

[Adam]

Russ asked how else he might approach the theory. I suggested a tinfoil hat. A little joke.

 

[Outcast]

Tinfoil hat?

Yeah it keeps the government from using satellites to read your brain waves . :rofl:

 

[enigma]

Then there were all of the people who were sitting on the interstate in front of the Pentagon that morning calling into the radio stations here in Washington saying basically: "HOLY CRAP! A BIG F$*&ING PLANE JUST FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON!"

I suppose those were all of them government plants. Oh and the government must have silenced all of the people who were sitting on the same interstate who saw the missile go in.

Hey... maybe that's what happened to the people who died on that flight! The government, instead of letting them get on the plane, put each of them in a car and had them drive by the Pentagon at the exact instant that the "missile" hit, and then killed them afterwards to cover it up.

These conspiracy theorists really need a lesson shaving with Occam's Razor. After all... militant hijackers crashing planes after hijacking them with devices which weren't screened for is so very hard to believe...