Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: conspiracy theory?
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
bryden42
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Thought that you guys might like to look at this one, I don't claim to support this, but I do remember initial reports stating that it was a missile like object that had hit the pentagon.

what do you guys think or remember?
Mata
I remember hearing that it was a plane right from the beginning.

It's always seemed a bit odd, how the plane hit the best possible bit of the building that it could hit (in terms of minimising casualties) and how little wreckage there is, but all the plane wrecks that we see are from crashes, not impacts. How are we supposed to know what to expect?

I remember seeing a piece of video where the air force had decided to test what would happen to a jet if it flew at full speed into a concrete wall. It pretty much turned to dust. That much mass hitting a solid object doesn't leave a lot of stuff behind.

I'm not saying that I think it is beyond the capability of the US government to shoot their own building to build a case for war, only that I have not seen convincing evidence to support it. I think I saw some of the Danny Wallace program on this subject and there were some pretty reasonable answers given as to why there would be so little debirs (which I can't remember).

One thing that always annoys me about this kind of thing is when people working in petrol stations start saying things like 'it sounded like a missile' as if they have been working with missiles every day for the last ten years and not trying to get a bonus for selling a pack of chewing gum to every driver through their door. People say things like 'it sounded like a clap of thunder' when explosions happen, but that doesn't mean that explosions are actually thunder. There's also the point that you could have every peice of video footage in the area released, all showing a 757 and conspiracy theorists still wouldn't believe it.

The hole looks too big for a missile (but I'm no expert!) and further holes in the building could have been caused by anything. I have difficulty believing that a commercial small passenger jet would have punched through so many ringss of a very tough building. With a missle being too small, and a jet not appearing to be strong enough, that leaves the next likely option as either a 757 or one of those giant bullet things from the Mario Brothers games.
pgrmdave
If it was a missle, then what happened to the plane which went missing, with all those people on it?
Daria
I remember the initail reports about the inccident in NY, and almost as a side note they mentioned something about a plane coming down at The Pentagon- but after that original report, I can't remember anything else being said. It seemed to be "hushed up" pretty quickly, but it could have just been pushed to one side, what with the chaos in NY.
pgrmdave
It was pushed to the side because it was not nearly as tragic or destructive as the WTC was, when they knew that many fewer people died and that there was little chance for damage to the surrounding area, they shifted their focus back to the more immediate danger at the WTC.
Witless
I remember on the day, reports of a fourth plane, initial eye witness' claimed it was shot down by fighter jets, then that quickly got quietened down too. Instead the story spun was that the passengers must have over powered the terrorists and that the plane crashed as a result.

Never been sure if I believed that.
Calantyr
Theres nothing about the Pentagon crash that I've seen that can't be easily explained away. Very little wreckage? Well what do you expect from a plane that has just refulled with highly explosive aviation fuel is purposely flown at top speed into a building that is designed to withstand aerial bombardment?

As for the plane that was 'overpowered' by the hijackers... bollocks. Initial reports all calloborated that it was shot down, and witnesses on the ground say that fighters were converging on it. Not to mention the recording on the blackbox sounded like something devised by Holywood.

But oh well. Either way I suppose it's for the best that it is beleived the people overwhelmed the plane. People need heroes, and the alternative can only hurt their memory.
ladysan
*shrugs*

after watching this, I am now convinced that the US government has some explaining to do.
monkey_called_narth
i have anouther movie that goes along the same line about the consipracy theory. if anyone is interested in seeing this hit me up on aim at motherjonesriot , and ill send you the movie.
Witless
QUOTE (ammisan @ Apr 3 2006, 02:53 AM)
*shrugs*

after watching this, I am now convinced that the US government has some explaining to do.
*



Yeah, I had thought about a lot of stuff about the whole attack that made little no sense. Like how neatly the towers collapsed, how buildings normally survive plane impacts and a whole load of junks.

I've never really bought a whole lot about the 9/11 event, and probably never will. What am I going to do about it? Nothing! It annoys me quite a lot that the higher powers own my life to such an extent that they can shape the history as it will be told forever more. It annoys me enough to not want to think about it too much, or else turn into a ranting extremist.

The true story about 9/11 will probably never come out.. and if it does, it will doubtfully come out within our life time.
monkey_called_narth
look on the brigth side... in 2040 they will release who killed kennedy.
Felander
QUOTE (Witless @ Apr 7 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (ammisan @ Apr 3 2006, 02:53 AM)
*shrugs*

after watching this, I am now convinced that the US government has some explaining to do.
*



Yeah, I had thought about a lot of stuff about the whole attack that made little no sense. Like how neatly the towers collapsed, how buildings normally survive plane impacts and a whole load of junks.

I've never really bought a whole lot about the 9/11 event, and probably never will. What am I going to do about it? Nothing! It annoys me quite a lot that the higher powers own my life to such an extent that they can shape the history as it will be told forever more. It annoys me enough to not want to think about it too much, or else turn into a ranting extremist.

The true story about 9/11 will probably never come out.. and if it does, it will doubtfully come out within our life time.
*


The World Trade Centers were built to withstand being hit by a plane though, I read. It was only the super high temperatures melting the steel structure within the building that caused it to collapse.
trunks_girl26
QUOTE (Felander @ Apr 7 2006, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE (Witless @ Apr 7 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (ammisan @ Apr 3 2006, 02:53 AM)
*shrugs*

after watching this, I am now convinced that the US government has some explaining to do.
*



Yeah, I had thought about a lot of stuff about the whole attack that made little no sense. Like how neatly the towers collapsed, how buildings normally survive plane impacts and a whole load of junks.

I've never really bought a whole lot about the 9/11 event, and probably never will. What am I going to do about it? Nothing! It annoys me quite a lot that the higher powers own my life to such an extent that they can shape the history as it will be told forever more. It annoys me enough to not want to think about it too much, or else turn into a ranting extremist.

The true story about 9/11 will probably never come out.. and if it does, it will doubtfully come out within our life time.
*


The World Trade Centers were built to withstand being hit by a plane though, I read. It was only the super high temperatures melting the steel structure within the building that caused it to collapse.
*




Yup, it's true. The fire ended up gutting out the inside of the buildings. Had there been even a less sever fire, they would have been able to withstand the hit.
Witless
Super high temperatures my arse. The steel companies that supplied the steel to the WTC were a bit confused by this explanation. Jet fuel (the main fuel of a fire) doesn't burn at 2000 F. That's the temperature low grade steel starts to fail at,
High grade steel has a failing temperature of near double that and that is what was in the WTC. By the laws of engineering a jet fuel fire cannot cause high grade building steel to fail in less than 40 minutes. It cannot happen.

Also the tower collapsed in under 10 seconds.. that's free fall speed. Meaning the entire tower collapsed all in one go and didn't fail merely at the impact site of the explosion. If it had failed at the impact site.. then that part would have collapsed first into the rest and slowed the whole thing right down.

The whole thing made no sense from start to finish.. to me it's why the story told isn't the reality of what happened.
pgrmdave
QUOTE
*shrugs*

after watching this, I am now convinced that the US government has some explaining to do.


Please, please - anybody who watched that read through a few well thought out responses.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_...ge_analysis.htm

http://questionsquestions.net/

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html

If you had time to watch that film, you have time to read these.
Witless
pgrmdave, Could you maybe say what's in those links.. or perhaps quote, summarise a little. I don't much enjoy reading essays on computer screens. It's a little straining on the eyes to read pages and pages of text in essay form.

Not trying to be a bother it's just a bit frustrating.
pgrmdave
I'll see what I can do. They are very robust rebuttals, so I don't know how much summarizing I can do. Here are some quotes:

QUOTE
The video begins with a direct eyewitness report from FOX reporter Mark Burnback who observed UA 177 that hit WTC2:

"It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side. Again it was not a normal flight that I’d ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front and it did not look like it belonged in the area."

This statement is taken as gospel both by Mr. Avery and his admirers...but [Mr. Avery] has not mentioned that in the fuller version witness Birnbach states that he was at a subway stop in Brooklyn, hence at least a mile from the plane that was silhouetted against the sky, so that Birnbach would not be not able to see any windows because of both the distance and the lighting...other photos of the plane definitively show it had standard United Airlines markings; airplane wreckage with windows was found amongst the rubble at WTC5. Thus, Mr. Avery makes selective use of unreliable eyewitnesses ill placed to make the relevant observations, and he ignores other available evidence that this witness is mistaken.


QUOTE
The “pod” or “missile” is an artifact of light and shadow reflecting from the fairings of the UA175. The fairings are the elongated ovular pods under each wing of a Boeing 767 into which the landing gear retract. They extend from roughly the point where the front of the wings join the plane to several feet behind where the back of the wings join the plane.


QUOTE
The clincher used by Mr. Avery and his mentor is that flash, the supposed missile explosion, occurs before the shadow of the plane meets the plane when it hits the tower, hence that the flash is a separate and prior event caused by the missile impact...There is a thin cylindrical shadow of the plane's fuselage that advances toward the tower as the plane does, and that meets the tower when the plane does, at which point the flash occurs, corresponding to the front of the fuselage impacting the tower. There is a second larger shadow of the wings that arrives later, but only this “late shadow” from the wings “proves” the missile theory. Thus, the analysis of both films is such a gross distortion of the facts that I am inclined to think it is deliberate misinformation; that it works is a sad commentary on audience gullibility.


QUOTE
By using the third of his four video clips, vonKleist rebuts skeptics who claim that the flash is caused by the fuselage impact.

"Let's take another look at this one clip and you'll notice that the flash is a separate event than the contact of the fuselage as it hits the building. Some folks have stated that the flash was the result of the fuselage making contact with the trade center building. But as you can see the flash is indeed to the right of the fuselage and in fact as the fuselage makes contact with the world trade tower you can see a reflection of the flash in the fuselage which further supports the contention that these are two separate events."

This interpretation is patently false, since the first of the video clips – the CNN footage that gives the best, longest, fullest and clearest picture of this impact from an angle almost directly behind the plane just to the right side of the fuselage – shows there is no such separate event, but only a flashpoint where the fuselage hits the tower, but not to the right of it...Mr. Avery's video is especially offensive because it displays frames from the “flash” side-by-side between 3:25 and 3:32. As any reader can see by freeze-framing the movie at 3:29, the illusory missile present in one (or with vonKleist the flash to the right of the fuselage as a separate event) is not present in the main CNN footage.


QUOTE
Mr. Avery states that “the downed light poles were thrown away from the Pentagon, not towards it, and the bases are ripped out completely. There is no indicated that these were went or damaged by a Boeing 757 traveling at 535 mph. Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground.” (11:20-11:35) COMMENT: First, The direction of the light poles doesn't much matter given that their final direction depends on the torquing forces to which they were subjected and the fact that they might bounce around on the ground once toppled. Hence, it is largely irrelevant. Second, the spatial relationship of the toppled poles to the Pentagon is nowhere apparent in most of the photos. Nonetheless, where it is apparent the photos in the film show the toppled light poles falling in the direction of the Pentagon, away from the highway, and roughly pointing in the Pentagon's direction. Furthermore, every one shows significant structural damage at its top as though it had been clipped by a plane and popped from the ground.


QUOTE
Mr. Avery then argues that the damaged diffuser case has circular bezels but both a diagram and an actual diffuser case from a 757 have triangular bezels. COMMENT: This observation might be of interest if Mr. Avery made use of the fact that at least two companies have made engines for the 757 (Rolls Royce, Payne-Whitney); that they almost certainly do not make them the same way, and that each company in turn may have made them differently at different times since the shape of the bezel is not an essential specification of performance, and it is the performance specifications that must be met, not the bezel shape. This is like arguing that the 1.6 liter engine found in the fiery crash of a 1983 Nissan Sentra could not be from a 1983 Sentra because, LOOK!!, Here is a photo and a diagram of a 1.5 liter 1983 Nissan Sentra engine. Well, Nissan makes both size engines for the 1983 Sentra.


QUOTE
Mr. Avery then says to “forget the debris. The 767's that hit the WTC left a very distinct outline of a commercial airliner. Therefore we should expect something similar at the Pentagon.”...Avery remarks, “The only damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole approximately 16' in diameter.” COMMENT: First, Avery advances a bad argument because whether or not the Pentagon should show the outline of an airliner in the same way depends on whether it is constructed of the same material as the WTC, and if not, upon the structural differences. Since the outer wall of the Pentagon was 18” of steel reinforced concrete and had many of its windows replaced with bomb-resistant 2,500 pound windows in the renovation process that was not yet completed, there is no reason to expect the same pattern. Indeed Mr. Avery's short attention span shows when he asks the relevant question at 21:35 “And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was renovated to withstand that kind of attack? ” Second, the area of damage caused by the wings to the Pentagon does in fact fit its outlines well. The photo that Avery mistakenly says shows just a small hole in fact shows massive damage to the façade where the right wing hit; the left side is totally obscured by black smoke. Other photos of the left area show a very close correlation to the angled wingspan of a 767. See “Revelations 911,” http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm . For those who were awake during “ In Plane Site ” , the video contains a photo (9:38) showing massive damage from the left wing to the Pentagon façade even while Mr. vonKleist is acting like some fraud must have been committed because the ever-tapering ever-thinner 757 wings did not collapse every part of the Pentagon they impacted. Mr. Avery succeeds by simply ignoring massive damage in his own data and denying that it is there. Indeed, he continues “Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?” while showing windows that are smashed open and have flames licking through them. As noted, the 2” 2,500 pound bomb-resistant windows did quite well while other windows not yet replaced were broken.


These quotes are taken from the first site - http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_...ge_analysis.htm
The Chief
QUOTE (bryden42 @ Mar 25 2006, 06:20 PM)
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Thought that you guys might like to look at this one, I don't claim to support this, but I do remember initial reports stating that it was a missile like object that had hit the pentagon.

what do you guys think or remember?
*


Have a read of this site.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

Interesting reading not to sure what to make of it.
pgrmdave
My (unskilled) refutation:

QUOTE
The first and most important task after arriving at the scene of a crime would be to examine the plane wreckage and determine the point of impact, the trajectory, angle and speed of the aircraft at the point of impact. There is only one problem. There is no trace of recognizable wreckage from a Boeing 757! There is no fuselage, no tail section, there are no wheels, engines, wings, luggage or passenger seats, nor are there any bodies to be found. This leads us to our first and foremost question, if a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon as was reported by the media and government officials, where did it go? What evidence is there to support the theory of an airliner careening into the building?


First of all, how do we know there was no wreckage other than that he says so? Second of all, where did the plane go if not there? Are we to believe that the plane simply disappeared?

The photographs:

We don't know when they were taken - and he tells us in the third photograph how far away we are:

QUOTE
First, the most obvious question to ask is: "Where is the wreckage of a 757?" There are no signs of wreckage whatsoever! As stated earlier, there is nothing in this or any other photograph available at this time that indicates that an aircraft the size of a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. Notice the size of the demolished area. The Pentagon is four stories high, and if each story is 10-12ft in height, and the added height for the roof area is another 10ft., the total height of the building would be approximately 58ft.


With a picture taken from that high up, could you recognize a wheel? If a plane hit a highly fortified building at top speed, do you really think it's going to stay well intact? No, it will, like a race car at high speeds, break apart into many tiny pieces, very few of which would be visible at that height. Secondly - there's a hole in the building. The fuselage would be inside the building, not outside, so the bulk of any debris would be inside the walls.

QUOTE
Photo #5 shows the roof area that collapsed into the demolished area. Notice that the roof for the most part is still intact and came down in mostly one piece. It is also important to note that the area just below the roof also remained relatively intact. Given the tail height of almost 45 ft., and the fact that there is no evidence that an aircraft hit the ground and slid into the Pentagon, how is it possible that the roof and area immediately below remained virtually undamaged save for the collapse?


It's the Pentagon - one of the best built modern fortresses of our time. The fact that it wasn't as damaged as a normal building isn't remarkable, in fact, it's what one should expect.

QUOTE
The final sentence reads: "The jagged wound cut through three of the buildings five rings, trapping hundreds of people." On reviewing the first three pictures, one can easily see that only one of the buildings rings was penetrated.


No, we only see that only one ring was destroyed on the outside - we don't know about ANY internal problems, including, perhaps, cutting through multiple rings. I am not saying that he is wrong, merely that it doesn't take much imagination to think that it's possible that they are right.

He makes a big deal about a book not being burned in one of the pictures, but makes the assumption first off that it is a book, secondly that the damage in that picture occured from the initial impact, and not a later collapse, and thirdly that the book was there during the attack. And remember - this is a FORTRESS. It is not a normal building - it is built specifically to withstand attacks, at the very least, fires.

QUOTE
If the fire was so localized, how is it when we look at photo #7, we can see farther down on the left side of the building, flame shooting out of the window? If there was a fireball as reported, and as is illustrated in the recently released surveillance film from the Pentagon, how could the fire have directed itself in such a way as to create a "horseshoe" of roof damage, damaging a major part of the north rings.


Perhaps fires are directed certain ways - perhaps they are directed along hallways to minimize damage to rooms - perhaps there were multiple fires, caused by the collapse of the building.

My biggest points are seemingly contradictory - that the damage makes sense, and that the lack of damage makes sense, however, I think that they can be seen as very similar. A plane was flown into the building, and it caused damage, in fact, it even caused some damage that I don't think they expected. It was chaotic, and they were caught unprepared. It makes sense that there would be chaotic damage. At the same time, the Pentagon is built very soundly, and is built to withstand attacks, so it makes sense that the damage, while severe, is not nearly as severe as one would expect from flying a plane into a building.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.