What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: tivo No, the point is you're comparing apples to oranges. Unless you're an accident reconstruction specialist and not telling us, you have no clue what would happen when anything hits anything else more complex than a hammer and nail.

So you'll criticize someone else for their Appeal to Authority and then immediately turn around and tell me because I'm not an authority I don't know what I'm talking about?

Interesting how you quickly try to discredit me, but don't address the simple math I presented.

Quote by: tivodan A piece of lightweight aircraft aluminum struck a concrete and steel structure that was designed as, among other things, a military fortress, at 350 mph. Frankly, I'm surprised there were any pieces of the plane left that didn't fit into a Cracker Jack box.

I do, however, know a thing or two about piloting.

In order to hit the side of the Pentagon straight on, as the pictures show, a 127,520lb aircraft would have to squeeze under a bridge with inches to spare above and below after just completing a dive that would require more than the space available to stabilize. And it did this at 350 MPH? Not possible.

Quote by: tivodan 1) Take evidence 2) Apply Ockham's Razor 3) QED.

That's not an argument. That's a punchline.

What evidence is there?

As you said, 60 tons of lightweight metal hit a building at 350 MPH and managed to collapse a structure that is built to withstand direct attacks. Where is the evidence?

When you look at a picture like this:
Imageentagon video security4.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... it raises a big question.

The Pentagon hadn't collapsed at that time. Yet you can clearly see some of the fire of the explosion up above the roof of the structure extending quite a ways back.

Exactly how does an explosion go straight up and then flow back after 60 tons moving 350 MPH created a vacuum of air going in the other direction?

There should have been serious air disturbance, yet from the billowing of the cloud there is almost no wind at all.

Also, it gives the appearance that the plane exploded on impact. That means it would have been contained relatively well and not have punched a hole in the third ring.

Care to explain those for me with some actual facts?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Scott There are a lot of plausible scenarios.

And more people are necessary for the conspiracy--58 people faked their death and are now living somewhere with an assumed identity, or underground, or some camp somewhere, whatever you wackos need to fit your ludicrous "hypothesis".

Ooh Ooh how about this. A couple guys got together to decide on an attack on America. Using the lax security of airports, and the ineptitude of government agencies that worked against each other, nine people with rudimentary flying skills boarded airplanes and smashed them into buildings. How is that not plausible? 50 people max involved in using jets as rockets vs. the thousands necessary to fulfill all the requirements of your mastermind plot.

Your scenario involves more and more people until half the nation is in on the conspiracy. What you are doing is called "anomaly hunting" and is the trademark skill of pseudoscientists everywhere.

Here's a challenge for those that believe 9/11 is a conspiracy--give me an estimate as to how many were involved in this mastermind plot?

[ZNFYRH]

The point, at least for me, is that it's impossible for the Pentagon to have been hit by a 757.

[lsbskins1]

I knew a man who died on the plane that hit the Petagon. I dare any of you to tell his daughter her Father he did not really die, or was in on it. You will come back missing your face.

[ZNFYRH]

Now, lsbskins, go back and read where people said that they don't believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

Not that it wasn't a plane... but that it wasn't a 757.

Way to jump in and put your foot in your mouth.

[shawmutt]

I knew a man who died on the plane that hit the Petagon.

Not that it wasn't a plane... but that it wasn't a 757.

What the...

...

...does he really need to spell out that the guy he knew was on a 757?

Way to jump in and put a foot in your mouth.

How many people were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?

[ZNFYRH]

For crying out loud...

This whole thing is about the reports that it was a 757.

I'm saying it is physically impossible for a 757 to be traveling at 350 MPH and hit the Pentagon from the angle at which it struck.

Now if you want to address a conspiracy, it's just as easy for a planet to disappear into the ocean and be reported as the one that hit the Pentagon.

All it requires is a computer programmed to take off, head east, then dive.

[shawmutt]

I'm saying it is physically impossible for a 757 to be traveling at 350 MPH and hit the Pentagon from the angle at which it struck.

I'm saying it's not impossible, it's what happened. If there was definitive video of the plane, like in the impact at the WTC, there'd be some other conspiracy to explain it--involving, of course, the hundreds of people complicit to the conspiracy.

I'm basing my answer on science and physics. What are you basing your answer on?

Again. How many people were involved in your version of events?

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point, at least for me, is that it's impossible for the Pentagon to have been hit by a 757.

How the hell can you even think that? Is there some forcefield protecting the gon? It doesn't matter about any of those bogus BS photo images, or about how fortified the pentagon is so it wouldn't have done that much damage, or it's missile defense would have shot it down, or anything else.....

cripes, you're trying to make a conspiracy out of something that happened the exact same way aprox the same time as the other plane crashes. If you nose dive the plane, or bring it in on a landing proceedure, then you're gonna hit a building with a big plane..... I've also had some air flight study as well, and it is possible to do..... why do you say it's impossible because of your physics?

Because you crash if you apply thos measures..... and that's what they planned for.... to crash.

And you're right.... the building is pretty strong.... which is why the plane didn't stripe the whole thing through like a house.

So what is the purpose of flying a jet into the Pent?

Did the fighter shoot down the plane in defense and then was ordered to fly into the pentagon? Where is the reported death of this pilot of that day, in that location?

Too many what ifs...... not enough decent evidence for an explination..... hence.... Give the dead people some respect!

[ZNFYRH]

And where is the strong evidence that says a 757 hit the Pentagon?

It doesn't add up.

Something hit the Pentagon, but not a 757.

Show me how it's mathematically possible.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH; For crying out loud... This whole thing is about the reports that it was a 757. I'm saying it is physically impossible for a 757 to be traveling at 350 MPH and hit the Pentagon from the angle at which it struck.

As the hill billy in Deliverance once said "Mr., You don't know nothin"



These guys were trained specifically in how to fly these types of planes. If in an emergency, you usually have to fly in on a glider motion, possibly these guy dropped a lot of altitude to gain momentum, then pull up and increase engine throttle to increase a glide, prior to landing.... hence you could be in this position for a few Km/miles, depending on the skill of the pilot(s)

It's quite possible to do, and the planes low speed could also explain why there wasn't as much damage as there should have been.

Now if you want to address a conspiracy, it's just as easy for a planet to disappear into the ocean and be reported as the one that hit the Pentagon.

Planet? That would be an interesting conspiracy.

If you mean plane, then you'd have to fly it in a location where there were no fishermen or sailors, etc..... in fact.... WHAT'S THE POINT? To what end? There isn't one? This is just a lame conspiracy for the sake of a new conspiracy.

All it requires is a computer programmed to take off, head east, then dive.

And humans still know how to fly just as well, if not better.

[shawmutt]

And where is the strong evidence that says a 757 hit the Pentagon?

Joe R. - Pentagon: No-757 Crowd Making Ass out of Itself

Your turn. How many people were complicit in the 9/11 plot?

Here's more insite into the mind of the conspiracy theorist: 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher: Abby Scott and Ray Rivera kick conspiradroid ASS!

There's some people who say Boeing 757s didn't even hit the world trade center! Nutcases.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Scott There are a lot of plausible scenarios.

Plausible scenarios? What, you think cut and pasting from conspiracy sites excludes you from demonstrating plausibility? Can you summarize arguments or is cut-and-paste-look-it-up-for-yourself the best you can offer for debate? For the hell of it, I'll check out your first link; you'll have to condense all that video "evidence" and summarize the gist in English, if that's possible.

Quote by: Scott portland imc - 2004.10.10 - I know what happened to flight 77.

This one's a beauty. The central argument for explaining the missing 757 passengers goes like this:

I think many people faked their deaths. Perhaps a remote control center was riding with these folks on the C130 transport plane many witnesses saw at the same time as the missile attack on the pentagon. Here's is the list of people in aerospace/defense/bush associates that were on the plane that disappeared (into the shadow gov?). I'm sorry this is a rough draft, these are all excerpts from AP, Boston Herald, W Post, NYT, and other mainstream sources. The passenger list must be scrutinized to figure out what happenned to the alleged flight 77.

What an elaborate argument--and it doesn't even need evidence! Just supposition and innuendo! Powerful stuff, Scott. Personally, I'm growing partial to the Super Hamburger Theory--it has an equal amount of substance.

Quote by: Scott Have you seen "Painful Deceptions? Another theory is given during the last five minutes of part one.

Give me the Readers' Digest version and then maybe I'll take the time to watch these videos. Your first link does not give me much hope for anything valuable in the others. Just explain your points in plain English please.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: shawmutt Your turn. How many people were complicit in the 9/11 plot?

I didn't answer the question the first four times. It has nothing to do with the topic.

If you guys would stop the obnoxiousness for two seconds you wouldn't need to keep up with attitude towards me.

I already ignore Praxius simply for the way he posts and his inability to maintain respect.

The link you provided is exactly what I was looking for.

In the Conclusion, he mentions the only 6 things he has proven successfully. Of the 6, only the last is an issue with me. I agree with the other 5. Go back and read my posts and you'll see that.

[shawmutt]

I didn't answer the question the first four times. It has nothing to do with the topic.

It has a lot to do with the topic. In order for what really happened to have happened only a few people and a rudimentary plan need be involved. In order to have what you think happened, an increasing number of conspirators need to be involved until an incredible number of people are walking around with "the truth". However, apparently you don't think the number of people involved have anything to do with conspiracy theories. You ignore it and in the process ignore reality.

The link you provided is exactly what I was looking for.

I figured, because most web pages deal with this issue in an amazing array of incredulity. Like speed chess, you already have all your pieces lined up, it's just the mechanical act of remembering all the moves that keeps you apart from reality.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH; If you guys would stop the obnoxiousness for two seconds you wouldn't need to keep up with attitude towards me. I already ignore Praxius simply for the way he posts and his inability to maintain respect.

I've shown plenty of respect. I explained to you that the links and information you are providing are crap.... they are not worth considdering as evidence, because none of it has anything to back it up.

I don't need to be disrespectful to show the truth in what you're trying to use..... your own uneducated experience in the things I am shines through.

You're ignoring me because I can and have just disproved any of those photos.... and you telling me that I'm being rude or obnoxious is irrelevent to what I am telling you of the garbage evidence you guys have provided.

Based on the provided information, compared to these low resolution images that can not possibly be identified by any methods of todays technology, this conspiracy is false.

There is no practical motive, there is no practical evidence, and there is too much logistic evidence proven otherwise.

You want to ingnore me.... that's not my loss... you just continue to look foolish in avoiding the truth.... and that's not my doing.

I don't need to rub your arse with baby powder and butter you all up to get my point across. If you're wasting people's time with this lame evidence, I'm gonna point it out.

At this point, the photos are not enough evidence to prove you case... provide some new, better quality footage and perhaps I will reconsidder.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, it was a 757, hijacked by Islamic Terrorist, flown into the Pentagon.


There were tons, literally tons of debris in there... oddly enough shaped like airplane parts.. ya know...

LIKE THIS:





Now you can enjoy playing"But but but" games all you want, and maybe in lala land where the 9/11 deniers live, it's a meaningful and fun experience shared by the tribe to further separate themselves from earth, but back here where the sane ones reside such is frowned upon. Not because we cannot handle the truth, oh the reality is that we understand it all to well, and like adults face it and understand it not seek frivolous nonsense to hide behind.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: shawmutt This has been thoroughly debunked again and again. This American Life has an excellent episode on the mentality of conspiracy theorists. They are sick and twisted individuals who have a tentative grasp on reality at best. They don't care about the people involved in the tragedies, they only care about feeding their conspiracies until they are bloated and dying.

You're quite mistaken. Many people as rational as you have observed that the official story is full of holes and outright lies.

And they want justice for the victims, not death and destruction for innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You and you kind are the perpetrators and supporters of the phoney conspiracy story that is allowing Uncle Sam's filthy wars.

[The Decider]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You're quite mistaken. Many people as rational as you have observed that the official story is full of holes and outright lies.

Do you have evidence that disproves the 757 plane crash into the Pentagon? Can you offer a rational explanation of the whereabouts of the passengers on that flight? The other conspiracy theorists on this thread have so far struck out on these issues.

[PatrickHenry]

I am suspicious of the Pentagon event from a pragmatic viewpoint. As to the hard evidence, I don't have a lot to say.

If it was hit by an airliner, the piloting was done by someone who was an expert, probably not a novice like Hani Hanjour. A diving 270 degree turn in the brief moments before impact into the unoccupied section of the Pentagon screams for explanation. What are the ground effects of an airliner at 500 miles per hour?

Why were there no Arabic names on the passenger manifest? Whose IDs were they using? Where are the flight recorders? Where are the videos confiscated by the authorities on 9/11 and what would they show? Why was Rumsfeld still killing time long after the second impact in NYC and not up to speed on an incoming bogey at his office building?

What was the object covered and transported from the area by hand in the immediate aftermath? Why was a SAM system not alerted to defend the greatest military target on the face of the earth?

But as to whether it was a missile or another flying object that caused the damage, I don't think the evidence is conclusive. Sorta like the global warming debate.

But in any case, it is evident that 9/11 was the kickoff event to the Wars of Dubya. He doesn't seem to care much how many people die. The 3707 American soldiers who have died in Iraq aren't even fighting a war on terrorism, but rather a War of Conquest. Many thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, often by Coalition forces. Does this give President Bush indigestion? Any discomfort whatsoever? Not, IMO.

So I have no problem identifying him and his puppeteers as the perpetrators of 9/11. The Arabs? Patsies...