NationStates Jolt Archive

Check out the link, and give us your two cents... (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html#Main)

Someone else posted this same clip...it really makes you think! Weird how compelling a case the make that a Boeing didn't crash...despite the fact many specators saw a boeing!!!


This just supports my theory that you can do anything with the right marketing team!

Incompetent pilots?

Even the worst pilot can do anything once

No evidence of the plane?

Assuming it was travelling at 540 MPH, at 2 feet off the ground, it's amazing they found shards that big of it. As I'm certain you're aware, the closer to the ground you are, the more air there is, this is why airplanes fly where they do, the best drag/lift ratio; any higher, there isn't enough air to float on, any lower, there's too much air to push through.

Now then, a airplane travelling mach one at sea level that isn't a marvel of aerodynamics(F-16) will shatter, quite literally, and leave behind shards that are, at best, the size of a cell phone.

Any standard commuter or commercial jet will fare much worse than this, shattering at mach one no matter where it is. At ground level, this just gets worse. There is a MASSIVE vacuum behind these planes at a low altitude, and consequentially, a massive shockwave following the plane. Now combine this with a sudden stop via specially designed braking structure (i.e. the pentagon), and we're lucky to have parts that big

http://img51.exs.cx/img51/7983/omg6.jpg

Very compelling arguements.
It was either a smaller plane, or a cruise missle.
A Boeing 757 would have made much more devastation that it did.
Remember, it took TWO such planes to bring down the WTC, both MUCH larger buildings.

I also firmly believe that Flight 93 was brought down by American Navy Pilots.
They did so, becuase it was heading for the Whitehouse, and such an event, could not happen.
I cant say I wouldnt have made the same choice.

But as for the Pentagon, that is some very compelling evidence.

Incompetent pilots?

Even the worst pilot can do anything once

No evidence of the plane?

Assuming it was travelling at 540 MPH, at 2 feet off the ground, it's amazing they found shards that big of it. As I'm certain you're aware, the closer to the ground you are, the more air there is, this is why airplanes fly where they do, the best drag/lift ratio; any higher, there isn't enough air to float on, any lower, there's too much air to push through.

Now then, a airplane travelling mach one at sea level that isn't a marvel of aerodynamics(F-16) will shatter, quite literally, and leave behind shards that are, at best, the size of a cell phone.

Any standard commuter or commercial jet will fare much worse than this, shattering at mach one no matter where it is. At ground level, this just gets worse. There is a MASSIVE vacuum behind these planes at a low altitude, and consequentially, a massive shockwave following the plane. Now combine this with a sudden stop via specially designed braking structure (i.e. the pentagon), and we're lucky to have parts that big


But then what happed to the rest of it? Wouldent you find pools of melted Alumnam at the crash site? The only way most of that plane can disaper with out a trace is if most of it had a matter to Enrgey reaction (IE a nuklear explution) and for some thing stable as aumanem to have a nukelare explione a supernove must occrer

The wings and tail would have broken off from the fuselage, but they were neevr found.

Also, the amount of fuel that that plane would have had on it, would have set the entire grounds on fire.

Further, a plane traveling at that speed, would be subject to turbulence.
Theres no way it could have remained in the air at only two feet off the ground.

But then what happed to the rest of it? Wouldent you find pools of melted Alumnam at the crash site? The only way most of that plane can disaper with out a trace is if most of it had a matter to Enrgey reaction (IE a nuklear explution) and for some thing stable as aumanem to have a nukelare explione a supernove must occrer

It can undergo massive physical changes.

For example, when an asteroid hits the earth, it does so with such force and speed that it literally breaks down into it's component molecules.

And it wasn't a missle. Missles make a very shrill pitch from the solid fuel they burn, and the noise would have dopplered in a big way.

Planes go Whoosh.
Missles go Scheee.

@BS

The WTC is also far less structurally stable than the pentagon, being stacked on top of eachother rather than laid out in a huge area. They were also made of aluminium vs. the concrete of the Pent. The aluminium melted and the buildings collapsed

Remember, it took TWO such planes to bring down the WTC, both MUCH larger buildings.
Uhm...the WTC wouldn't be that hard to take down. They may be bigger in square footage (I seriously suggest you check that out, because the Pentagon is MASSIVE), however, all that square footage is stacked on top of itself. It would only take the collape of a few floors to make the whole thing collapse on itself. When a few floors fall out, all the ones above it come crashing down onto what is left of the towers, which can't handle that force, and so they just go down too.

The wings and tail would have broken off from the fuselage, but they were neevr found.

Also, the amount of fuel that that plane would have had on it, would have set the entire grounds on fire.

Further, a plane traveling at that speed, would be subject to turbulence.
Theres no way it could have remained in the air at only two feet off the ground.You under-estimate terrorists.

Tag

Tag
Is I it?

You under-estimate terrorists.


You underestimate physics.

You underestimate physics.
At least he isn't overestimating psychics.

Okay. Let's say that it is in fact a missle. So now the important questions; who and why?

The WTC is also far less structurally stable than the pentagon, being stacked on top of eachother rather than laid out in a huge area. They were also made of aluminium vs. the concrete of the Pent. The aluminium melted and the buildings collapsed

Uhh..No.

The WTC was not made out of aluminum.
Its far too soft a metal to be used in skyscrapers.
It was made form steel, I assure you.

You underestimate physics.
You under-estimate a break in the time-space continum.

You under-estimate a break in the time-space continum.
You underestimate the advantage of knowing how to spell continuum.

You underestimate the advantage of knowing how to spell continuum.



So he/she spelt it wrong big deal at least you know what it meant.

You under-estimate terrorists.
Well gathered that proffesional pilot trainers claimed they [the terrorists] were grossing inept, I doubt it.

But because I know little concerning aerodynamis, I will yeild to any intelligent comment based upon actual knowledge.

Uhh..No.

The WTC was not made out of aluminum.
Its far too soft a metal to be used in skyscrapers.
It was made form steel, I assure you.
Uh, yea, it's made on steel, but take this and chew on it. Get some Jenga blocks, stack 'em up in a stack of 3 blocks wide and stack it really, really tall. Throw something (fairly heavy) at it. They pretty much all come down.
Now do the same thing, but instead, make them in the shape of a Pentagon, and put it 5 wide on each side (you're base is 25 Jenga blocks) and stack it up about 5-10 jenga blocks tall. Throw the same object and the new structure. You don't do much damage do you (and that's when the target it made of the same material--thick concrete walls are a little harder to penetrate than steel...)

You underestimate the advantage of knowing how to spell continuum.Hey...

Shut-up.

Uh, yea, it's made on steel, but take this and chew on it. Get some Jenga blocks, stack 'em up in a stack of 3 blocks wide and stack it really, really tall. Throw something (fairly heavy) at it. They pretty much all come down.
Now do the same thing, but instead, make them in the shape of a Pentagon, and put it 5 wide on each side (you're base is 25 Jenga blocks) and stack it up about 5-10 jenga blocks tall. Throw the same object and the new structure. You don't do much damage do you (and that's when the target it made of the same material--thick concrete walls are a little harder to penetrate than steel...)

True.

But the fatal flaw in the WTC was the floor structures and not the girders that supported them.
They were made to withstand the impact of a large jet.

and no...steel is much harder to penetrate.
You can use a nail gun to pound a nail in concrete....you cant with a steel wall.

True.

But the fatal flaw in the WTC was the floor structures and not the girders that supported them.
They were made to withstand the impact of a large jet.

and no...steel is much harder to penetrate.
You can use a nail gun to pound a nail in concrete....you cant with a steel wall.


You're thinking about it the wrong way. Yes steel is tougher to penetrate than concrete... if the stress is normal. But when the planes hit the WTC the stress placed on the steel frame was not simply compression or tension, it was also shear (the steel frame runs vertically, the impact was horizontally leading to shear stresses). Even steel cannot handle shear well (almost nothing can). On the other hand, if you run head on into concrete the concrete will do a pretty good job handling the compression. The fact that the Pentagon's weight was distributed low to the ground and throughout the entire structure also allowed it to take the pounding better.

Um why are people arguing if a plane clan fly 2ft above the ground or not?


explain?


Oh and yes they can, its not an astochisngly good idea given fact like debirs being sucked into the engines.

But think a plance goes from landed to in the air - at somepoint its got the go through 2ft - if you think

Um why are people arguing if a plane clan fly 2ft above the ground or not?


explain?


Oh and yes they can, its not an astochisngly good idea given fact like debirs being sucked into the engines.

But think a plance goes from landed to in the air - at somepoint its got the go through 2ft - if you think

Ok its like this....

When a plane as big as a Boeing 757 flies at over 500 mph ...especially at low altitudes, you get turbulence.
Wich is...air currents that would cause a plane to get pushed up, or down depending on the updraft, or downdraft.
No plane, that large, flying that fast, could stay aloft, for that long....flying at only two feet off the ground.

well no not for long i agree, er how long did this weird theory need them to do so

well no not for long i agree, er how long did this weird theory need them to do so


Did you click the link?

only just persuaded it to work

hum ok something odd maybe, we still need an explenation of a couple of extra bits

1) were did the plane go if not into the building

2) what happend to little plan

3) why?

(and the last why needs most work if it was a nice cospiracy theory then it a bit quick off the mark.......)

amusing thought

I am convinced that Snopes.com is the best nonpornographic site on the Internet http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

What exactly happened is certainly questionable, but that is some compelling evidence that it was not a 757.

The three main things that I think demonstrated this best were (in order shown on the video):

1. the lack of Tail/Wings found. Particularly considering that the wings have very solid spars in them, and that wings sheer off fairly easily.

2. The exit hole. It was almost perfectly round, and approximately 7-8ft. in diameter. This after punching through several layers of a reinforced building. That would take something relatively round and very strong to do, seeing as how it didn't have enough kinetic energy at that point to punch through another wall. There is nothing I know of on a 757 that would be able to do that.

3. The video footage. Yes, it was pixelated. However, whatever that was, was too small to be a 757. Quite simply, it was higher than 2ft off the ground (at the lowest point) while being too high at the highest point to be as tall as a 757. And that was some pretty strait flying at a low altitude at a high speed.


So, I'm pretty sure that it was *not* a 757. So what *was* it? Well... it had to have been something that could travel at 500+ mph at zero altitude, that was big enough to knock down a huge chunk of the pentagon and punch a fairly clean 8ft diameter hole on exit without enough energy to go through another wall.

So... there is the cruise missile theory. If it were a cruise missile, it would have been fired from somewhere. We probably would have noticed. And most importantly it would have had at least a small warhead which would have blown a small crater at the point of final impact. So, probably not a missile.

This leaves us with it being some sort of medium sized jet aircraft. So, either a private jet, or a military craft.

Um why are people arguing if a plane clan fly 2ft above the ground or not?


explain?


Oh and yes they can, its not an astochisngly good idea given fact like debirs being sucked into the engines.

But think a plance goes from landed to in the air - at somepoint its got the go through 2ft - if you think

A 757 can certain fly 2ft above the ground. It has to land after all. What it can't do at 2ft above the ground is maneuver at speed. even using the rudder, one of the wings will still dip low for any turn, resulting in a crash.

Ok so lets forget all that for a second and think about why. Who would do this and why? Suggestions?

Ok so lets forget all that for a second and think about why. Who would do this and why? Suggestions?


If you mean "who would cover this up, and why" I thik its becuase the government didnt want people to know that the pentagon had been attacked by a cruise missle.

vulnerability makes people scared.

Ok so if we think its the govt. then why would they attack it with a missile? I mean the WTC was reason enough for war wasn't it?

Ok so lets forget all that for a second and think about why. Who would do this and why? Suggestions?

Well, it could be the same group of people who we're being told it is, but using different methods than we're led to believe because if a danger where much more apparent or threatening, people would be really frightened. Terrorists hijacking planes is perhaps less scary than terrorists on our soil with Fighter aircraft that could then be used as a launch platform for other attacks. (It is quite easy to purchase a used Mig and have it sent to the U.S.)

Yes, possibly farfetched, but a possibility and probably not the wildest one that will get thrown out.

If you mean "who would cover this up, and why" I thik its becuase the government didnt want people to know that the pentagon had been attacked by a cruise missle.

vulnerability makes people scared.

...and who exactly might be responsible for launching the cruise missle, and for what reason?

Ok so if we think its the govt. then why would they attack it with a missile? I mean the WTC was reason enough for war wasn't it?

But this was launched the same day and might not have been coordinated. But then, I think that's a pretty far flung theory anyway.

Sorry I gotta play devils advocate here, if it was the terrorists that launched this missile, why would they not want us to see footage of it? It would prove the Govt case more?

...and who exactly might be responsible for launching the cruise missle, and for what reason?


Well theres really no doubt that the WTC and the pentagon attacks were conducted by the same group.
Al-Qeada sems to be the popular theory.

It was definately a concerted effort.

I find it possible that it was either a cruise missle, or a private jet launched in league with the other attacks.

Sorry I gotta play devils advocate here, if it was the terrorists that launched this missile, why would they not want us to see footage of it? It would prove the Govt case more?

What would the reaction from the everyday people, to know that at any time, they could be atacked by a cruise missle?

Hysteria?

But this was launched the same day and might not have been coordinated. But then, I think that's a pretty far flung theory anyway.

Yes but even then they mustve realised when they planned it that they WTC would be reason enough!?

Sorry I gotta play devils advocate here, if it was the terrorists that launched this missile, why would they not want us to see footage of it? It would prove the Govt case more?

The government likes to keep things secret as a general rule. And a higher level of threat, more difficult to monitor would scare people a lot more...

Want to stop people from using passenger planes, don't fly any for a few days then tighten security. Want to stop someone from launching cruise missiles of flying fighter aircraft then... umm...

Yes but even then they mustve realised when they planned it that they WTC would be reason enough!?


I think the extremist Muslim mindsets of the planners, allowed them to think that the United States would actually be crippled by these attacks, and unable to retaliate.

How very wrong they were.

What would the reaction from the everyday people, to know that at any time, they could be atacked by a cruise missle?

Hysteria?

What would be the reaction to know that at any moment they could be attacked at worked by a hijacked aircraft?

The govt. really wants the people to be afraid of terrorists. (I think)

I find it possible that it was either a cruise missle, or a private jet launched in league with the other attacks.

I'm inclined to say not a cruise missile for the reason I mentioned earlier (I am also Morningdawn), which is that a cruise missile would have had a warhead and come to a different result.

Military aircraft aren't terribly difficult to come by.

What would be the reaction to know that at any moment they could be attacked at worked by a hijacked aircraft?

The govt. really wants the people to be afraid of terrorists. (I think)

Absolutely.

But being afraid of terrorists, makes you direct that fear into anger.
This allows those in power to direct that anger into a war against these un-named terrorists...

Being afraid of a cruise missle attack is eerily reminiscient of the Cold war...

..and that scares the shit out of people.

I'm inclined to say not a cruise missile for the reason I mentioned earlier (I am also Morningdawn), which is that a cruise missile would have had a warhead and come to a different result.

Military aircraft aren't terribly difficult to come by.


No, but its awfully hard to fly one, with out being watched, ESPECIALLY in the washington area.

as for the missle....the warhead may not have been active, or it could have been a dud, or something like a scud missle....no active warhead.

Absolutely.

But being afraid of terrorists, makes you direct that fear into anger.
This allows those in power to direct that anger into a war against these un-named terrorists...

Being afraid of a cruise missle attack is eerily reminiscient of the Cold war...

..and that scares the shit out of people.

But still it sounds like a HUGE amount of effort for a basically similar result as a little amount of effort. UNLESS it actually was an american military craft then its harder to say that they were terrorists.

But still it sounds like a HUGE amount of effort for a basically similar result as a little amount of effort. UNLESS it actually was an american military craft then its harder to say that they were terrorists.


If it was an american military craft, then that means that it was the biggest cover-up in history.
Also, imagine the security failure if someone could sneak into a military base, steal an aircraft, and fly it into the pentagon.

It almost seems impossible.

Thats why the idea of it being a cruise missle, makes more sense.
It could have been luanched from nearly anywhere, and snuck into the country.

sorry when i said military craft i was including cruise missiles etc. too. (yes ino theyr technically not craft but...

Well theres really no doubt that the WTC and the pentagon attacks were conducted by the same group.
Al-Qeada sems to be the popular theory.

It was definately a concerted effort.

I find it possible that it was either a cruise missle, or a private jet launched in league with the other attacks.

I find the idea of Al Qaeda launching high tech weaponry undetected from our own soil, with our own government covering it up, a bit absurd.

why was kennedy killed? was the cold war even real? did neil armstrong ever actually set foot on the moon? does area 51 exist, and if so, is it actually a storage/testing facility of nationally collected alien technology? what is a chemtrail, and why do they exist?
wake up and smell the shit, yall. it is most evident that americas politically biased media does what its told, and that we, as average, everyday citizens are not kept in the most honest loop available. and there are plenty of things we arent told about.
but in the end, what youre left with is a truckload of unsubstantiated speculation of rumours and shady circumstances. what are you going to do about it? sit here and bitch?
perhaps it has come time for the this government 'of the people, by the people. for the people' to answer to those who put them in power in the first place. we need to get up off our lazy boys poised so comfortably in front of our big screen tvs, or out of out gas hog suvs with that nifty climate control feature, turn off our damn xm wave radios, and tell these douche bags at the top that they dont exist without us.
go ahead. sit here, whining instead; wax your pseudo-intellect and debate shallow, pointless, and unprovable conspiracy theories while the country rightfully won in battle (or bartered for casinos and dirt cheap cigarrettes) from its original natives with the blood and toil of our ancestors.
it is conversations such as this one that bring once again to full clarity the reality of the fact that we truly have lost our nobility, and our right to the american dream. weve become rome...fat, lazy, overcontented, arrogant, and most of all, stupid. damn the man, save the empire.
shall we next talk about college tuition and the neccessity of it to be successful in this wonderful society?

I find the idea of Al Qaeda launching high tech weaponry undetected from our own soil, with our own government covering it up, a bit absurd.


Ok.

Follow my line of reasoning.
Im not saying that this IS what happened, only that its possible.

We know that its true that AQ has cells withing the US, right?
Its all too easy to sneak weaponry and other rescources into the country, via huge shipping crates that Customs, and the Port Authority, cant possibly check all of them.

So, how hard is it to conclude that one or more such individuals snuck either a fully assembled weapon like that, programmed it, and launched it from a remote location within the united states?

Now, if indeed, this was the case, the Government surely wouldnt want everyone to know that doing such a thing is possible, so it covers the story up, and says that it was a passenger plane, like a Boeing 757?

do people realise that on impact the wings, and the plane will fold in with the fact its alluminium.

why was kennedy killed? was the cold war even real? did neil armstrong ever actually set foot on the moon? does area 51 exist, and if so, is it actually a storage/testing facility of nationally collected alien technology? what is a chemtrail, and why do they exist?
wake up and smell the shit, yall. it is most evident that americas politically biased media does what its told, and that we, as average, everyday citizens are not kept in the most honest loop available. and there are plenty of things we arent told about.
but in the end, what youre left with is a truckload of unsubstantiated speculation of rumours and shady circumstances. what are you going to do about it? sit here and bitch?
perhaps it has come time for the this government 'of the people, by the people. for the people' to answer to those who put them in power in the first place. we need to get up off our lazy boys poised so comfortably in front of our big screen tvs, or out of out gas hog suvs with that nifty climate control feature, turn off our damn xm wave radios, and tell these douche bags at the top that they dont exist without us.
go ahead. sit here, whining instead; wax your pseudo-intellect and debate shallow, pointless, and unprovable conspiracy theories while the country rightfully won in battle (or bartered for casinos and dirt cheap cigarrettes) from its original natives with the blood and toil of our ancestors.
it is conversations such as this one that bring once again to full clarity the reality of the fact that we truly have lost our nobility, and our right to the american dream. weve become rome...fat, lazy, overcontented, arrogant, and most of all, stupid. damn the man, save the empire.
shall we next talk about college tuition and the neccessity of it to be successful in this wonderful society?

You've become rome. I'm Australian.

Very compelling arguements.
It was either a smaller plane, or a cruise missle.
A Boeing 757 would have made much more devastation that it did.
Remember, it took TWO such planes to bring down the WTC, both MUCH larger buildings.

Actually, in terms of square feet, the pentagon was the largest (maybe still is) building in the world. It is also one of the most heavily-constructed. The outer wall alone is steel-reinforced, 24-inch-thick concrete.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Two things these conspiracists never explain is if a missile hit the Pentagon is:
Why would the US military attack it's own building?
and
what happened to the real jumbo jet? If it got shot down earlier, why did no-one see the incident and/or report it? This site goes on about weckage being huge, so where is it then? Surely someone would have noticed a burning jumbo jet lying in a field near Washington. They're pretty hard to miss.

Anyway, they did find traces of weckage in the building. At the speed it was going, most of the more fragile parts, like the wings would have disintegrated against the reinforced walls.

Hey, I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. But I have a question or two:

What sort of cruise missile drills through the exterior wall making a jagged hole, blows up (the bulk of the damage was in the outer ring), and then makes a perfectly circular exit hole through the interior wall? Once it blows up - what is left making the hole? And wouldn't the more circular hole likely to be the first one before impact damage to the missile?

The explanation: that interior hole was caused by a jet engine that broke free and had the kinetic energy left to punch it's way through. Makes more sense than the other theory.


And why do people wonder where the aircraft wound up here, but not at the WTC? Did the wings chop off come do a halt and fall down the outside of the WTC buildings? No. We've all seen the tapes. They got carried inside.

340mph of inertia DOES play a part in all this you know.



So - what DID happen to that flight if this wasn;t it? They hijacked four aircraft, two hit the WTC, one crashed (quite possibly shot down if you ask me), and we are supposed to believe that the fourth one.... what? went out to sea and got shot down where nobody would see it or find the debris and there was a backup plan of a single cruise missile that they targetted against the pentagon?

How likely is that?


But hey - it makes for a lovely theory to bat around over and over.... if you ignore those pesky little "fact" thingys...

I am convinced that Snopes.com is the best nonpornographic site on the Internet http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm


Agreed. The CIAC Hoaxbusters page is also a good one.

What would the reaction from the everyday people, to know that at any time, they could be atacked by a cruise missle?

Hysteria?

1) If this were true, why has it not repeated? It's been nearly three years.

2) Why should being attacked by a cruise missile establish any more fear than being attacked by airplanes? Airplanes are certainly more plentiful and it would be a good deal more difficult to determine whether or not on airplane was simply a conveyance or a weapon.

3) You obviously did not grow up in the 80's. There was so much paranoia about being nuked into oblivion by the Russians that people did pretty much what they are doing now -- nothing we can do, so get on with daily life and stop worrying.

Why should being attacked by a cruise missile establish any more fear than being attacked by airplanes? Airplanes are certainly more plentiful and it would be a good deal more difficult to determine whether or not on airplane was simply a conveyance or a weapon.

In fact, using an airplane as a weapon would generate more fear, as the thought of being trapped on one being used in such a way would frighten the hell out of most ppl. Which is one of the reasons why they chose to attack the US in this way.

all a bunch of fruitcake, conspiracy theorist BS.

all a bunch of fruitcake, conspiracy theorist BS.

Can you prove it's not true, though? Can't be "fruitcake" if you don't have proof, now can it?

A few random thoughts on this. I'm a conspiracy theorist, but an informed one; I don't think a missile was involved here. To begin with, the wing of the Pentagon which was hit had just (and I mean -just-) been reinforced and armoured for the eventuality that it might be hit by a cruise missile. Which is very interesting in itself, but let's not go there right now. Point being that if it -was- a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, somebody did a pretty crap-ass job on the armour.

I've just been skimming this thread, but I didn't notice offhand anybody making mention of ground effect. When an aircraft is within about 20' of the ground, it experiences increased lift due to a cushion of higher pressure air generated between the wings and the ground. This can make landing an aircraft difficult in some cases, but might make low-level flying more stable than you'd expect. That last is just an informed hypothesis, and I have no experience to confirm it.

Cruise missiles ain't cheap. You can buy several truckloads of AK-47s and ammunition for the price of one cruise missile. And I'm not sure that there are many of them available to Al Quaeda which could hit a twenty block area with any accuracy, let alone the broad side of a barn. Cruise missiles are the weapons of choice for large well-funded militaries of the sort which could pose a serious and open threat to even the American war machine.

Interesting thoughts.....
1. It is impossible to prove a negative, you cannot prove something did not happen..etc..

2.Most of the facts point to some kind of government involvement with the Pentagon crash....such as:

A-Why did the FBI seize the tapes right away?
B-Small craft involved, and no large pieces of wreckage were found, there will be something larger than a cell phone found when a jet hits a building, the wings can easily shear off most jets under pressure (that is why you don't want to pull out of a vertical dive too hard)
C- Lack of major fires/conflagrations after the strike; jet fuel burns, and it does it in a spectacular fashion, even if you had fire control on the scene, a jumbo jet's full tank of gas does not go out easily.
D- If it was a missile, it would have to have been a cruise missile, bunker busters do not make nice round holes in walls. AND people who saw it said it looked like a small plane, which could be a commuter jet, or a cruise missile.
E- I'm still out on this issue, evidence points both ways....

If the government could orchestrate something so sophisticated as the WTC disaster, wouldn't you think they could at least "invent" just as condemning evidence of Iraqi/Al-qaeda connections? Not to mention, being a hell of alot easier/simpler!!

So you're saying that the US government killed 3000 of it's own people to justify a war? The government is evil, certainly no reason to doubt that, but I find it hard to believe that even it would do this. There are definitely worse governments out there, even if they were few and far between. These days, the government generally limits its oppression to censoring anime, banning genuine hentai, denying gay people the choice to marry someone they love, and telling us what we can and can't put in our bodies.

So you're saying that the US government killed 3000 of it's own people to justify a war?

It's an interesting (if horrible) hypothesis which holds water much better than the Al Quaeda as suicide bombers line. And it isn't unprecedented; Germany staged an attack against its own forces in order to justify its invasion of Poland before WW2 (IIRC). Here are a few of the supporting arguments.

-The Pentagon was attacked in the one place where it was least vulnerable at a time of day when there would be a minimum number of casualties.

-The WTC was specifically designed to withstand being struck by large aircraft. Resistance to a blaze of that intensity was an oversight in the design of the towers, and this ultimately was a major (possibly the main) contributing factor to their destruction. Furthermore, the WTC was struck at a time when there would be a much lower number of potential casualties.

-The US government released classified documents some years ago which outlined an experiment in which a viral agent was released into the Los Angeles (?) subway system in order to study the propagation of biological warfare agents in an urban environment. While the virus was not technically lethal to anybody but those already substantially weakened by other illness, this demonstrates a willingness by the American government to inflict civilian casualties on their own soil for the benefit of military gain.

-Osama Bin Laden's first statement after 9/11 was made to a Taliban newspaper. In this statement he denied responsibility for the attacks, noting that his fight was with the American government, not the people. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the man we think of as Osama Bin Laden is in fact Osama Bin Laden. Also, it seems unlikely that Al Quaeda - a trained military organization known to call off an operation years in the making if spooked - is responsible for a suicide bombing pulled off with box cutters.

In closing, I think it's entirely possible that the government intended to sacrifice a few hundred lives in order to further its military and social engineering goals, but made a major goof regarding the resilience of the WTC. Accurate or not, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bizarre "because they hate freedom" line.

Addendum: It actually wouldn't be very difficult to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, particularly for an organization such as the CIA. All they'd have to do is create false cells of Al Quaeda by recruiting known malcontents. Box cutters are ubiquitous pieces of equipment which you'd almost expect to find aboard an aircraft, and which would raise no alarms if found aboard prior to 9/11 2001. And with access to flight schedules, it would be easy to time the attacks for any time of day you'd like even months in advance.

So you're saying that the US government killed 3000 of it's own people to justify a war? The government is evil, certainly no reason to doubt that, but I find it hard to believe that even it would do this. There are definitely worse governments out there, even if they were few and far between. These days, the government generally limits its oppression to censoring anime, banning genuine hentai, denying gay people the choice to marry someone they love, and telling us what we can and can't put in our bodies.
between trhe republicans controlling the white house and congress, and shit some what like this happening inthe past, i wouldnt put it past them, especially when you look at the fct they were already planning an invasion of iraq before 9/11

It just seems so unlike the US government, though. It may be evil, but this would be a new low.

It just seems so unlike the US government, though. It may be evil, but this would be a new low.

I'm afraid it wouldn't. Anyone is capable of great evil, especially if they feel they are somehow justified. In the war against Communism, America dropped thousands of pounds of anti-personel bombs [per capita] on blatantly civilian populations in Laos in an effort to cut off supply lines. Another example is the firebombing of Dresden by allied forces at the end of WW2, in which approximately half a million civilians were burned to death or gunned down as they tried to escape. Nationality does not immunize one from the commission of atrocity.

-The Pentagon was attacked in the one place where it was least vulnerable at a time of day when there would be a minimum number of casualties.
Hardly damning evidence

-The WTC was specifically designed to withstand being struck by large aircraft. Resistance to a blaze of that intensity was an oversight in the design of the towers, and this ultimately was a major (possibly the main) contributing factor to their destruction. Furthermore, the WTC was struck at a time when there would be a much lower number of potential casualties.
Actually they were hoping that there would be a lot of people in the buildings who were arriving to work; again hardly damning evidence

-The US government released classified documents some years ago which outlined an experiment in which a viral agent was released into the Los Angeles (?) subway system in order to study the propagation of biological warfare agents in an urban environment. While the virus was not technically lethal to anybody but those already substantially weakened by other illness, this demonstrates a willingness by the American government to inflict civilian casualties on their own soil for the benefit of military gain.
So how does a non-lethal experiment somehow shows that the US government is willing to murder its own citizens? Do you NOT want the US to know how to deal with a biological attack?

-Osama Bin Laden's first statement after 9/11 was made to a Taliban newspaper. In this statement he denied responsibility for the attacks, noting that his fight was with the American government, not the people. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the man we think of as Osama Bin Laden is in fact Osama Bin Laden.
Of course the guy is going to deny it, he wants to live doesn't he?

Also, it seems unlikely that Al Quaeda - a trained military organization known to call off an operation years in the making if spooked - is responsible for a suicide bombing pulled off with box cutters.
And how else are they going to take over the airplane? Stuff toys?

In closing, I think it's entirely possible that the government intended to sacrifice a few hundred lives in order to further its military and social engineering goals, but made a major goof regarding the resilience of the WTC. Accurate or not, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bizarre "because they hate freedom" line.
Actually it's because they hate our policies on the middle east, esp. the stationing of troops near the holy city of Mecca and support of Israel

Addendum: It actually wouldn't be very difficult to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, particularly for an organization such as the CIA. All they'd have to do is create false cells of Al Quaeda by recruiting known malcontents. Box cutters are ubiquitous pieces of equipment which you'd almost expect to find aboard an aircraft, and which would raise no alarms if found aboard prior to 9/11 2001. And with access to flight schedules, it would be easy to time the attacks for any time of day you'd like even months in advance.
And said operation would require thousands of people to pull off minimum, many of which I doubt would be keen on the idea. Remember Watergate? How easily that was discovered? Do you really think the entire CIA is so evil as to attack fellow citizens so that Bush can go kill some Arabs?

Actually they were hoping that there would be a lot of people in the buildings who were arriving to work; again hardly damning evidence

Yet considerably more solid than the intelligence on Iraq's 'WMDs'.

So how does a non-lethal experiment somehow shows that the US government is willing to murder its own citizens? Do you NOT want the US to know how to deal with a biological attack?

It was lethal - just not to the vast majority. I would imagine that thousands of the elderly and sick died as a result of the ensuing epidemic. A more controversial example, mainly because it barely registered in the conservative media, is that the anthrax scares around 2002 were eventually traced back to US military officials.

Of course the guy is going to deny it, he wants to live doesn't he?

Then you deny the validity of the Osama confession tapes?

And how else are they going to take over the airplane? Stuff toys?

The point is that they're not going to take over an airplane at all. Martyrdom is utterly at odds with their modus operandi.

Actually it's because they hate our policies on the middle east, esp. the stationing of troops near the holy city of Mecca and support of Israel

Necessarily simplified, but I'm glad that you see it isn't all some goofy Saturday morning cartoon morality play.

And said operation would require thousands of people to pull off minimum, many of which I doubt would be keen on the idea. Remember Watergate? How easily that was discovered? Do you really think the entire CIA is so evil as to attack fellow citizens so that Bush can go kill some Arabs?

Well, first off, I could pull it off with perhaps twenty of the right people, dupes included. There's been a lot of hype about the complexity of the plan. It wasn't complex. They hijacked some aircraft and flew them into buildings. A couple months later a dumb kid did the same thing all by himself, albeit in a much smaller craft. This isn't rocket science.

Would the CIA do something unethical in the name of America? It's practically their mission statement. Let's face it, America has an awful lot of citizens. Thousands die every day, one way or another. And to a politician, you are just a number; to some politicians you are a number with a dollar sign in front. What's a few hundred faceless people lost in the cause of a very profitable holy war?

And on that note, do not ever assume that Christianity makes somebody immune to doing wrong. Vlad the Impaler commited his every atrocity in God's name, against enemy and countryman alike. He was, without a doubt, a very, very devout Christian.

Yet considerably more solid than the intelligence on Iraq's 'WMDs'.


Thank the brilliant UN inspectors, who, after spending weeks in a country banned to them for 4 years, expected to find the WMDs all stacked up with a BIG sign on them. I'd really like to know just where they were "digging", since they couldn't seem to find a buried 75ft long jet aircraft. After that little debacle, I have so much faith in their ability to find mortar shells, artillery shells, aircraft bombs, missiles.... :eek:

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]
It was either a smaller plane, or a cruise missle.
A Boeing 757 would have made much more devastation that it did.[QUOTE]

Really? On a building designed to withstand a missile attack? That place is built like a bomb shelter. The plane did destroy an entire section of the pentagon completely, a fifth of it's overall size. I'm not surprised that the plane was ripped to shreds, especially after the explosion - it is not uncommon for planes in a serious, devastating crash to be obliterated (i would consider this to be one of those crashes), leaving no part of the plane bigger than a small suitcase. Any remnant fuel would have burned, and even though these planes are strong and durable, the metal is so thin and light that they can even be ripped apart by air - if damage is done to the plane, weakening the structure, air pressure can cause the plane to buckle and crumple like a tin can. This didn't happen here but i find it perfectly believable that an explosion after a crash at a couple of hundred miles an hour could dispose of the plane in bitesize pieces.
Let's say there wasn't a plane, how did 187 people die? And what happened to the plane that was reported to have crashed? Did 187 families grieve for imaginery people?
Perhaps they hi-jacked the plane themselves and flew off radar, into space perhaps? If folk are so convinced of there being no plane, where did they go? :confused:

You've become rome. I'm Australian.


are you trying to make me jealous?

There's one problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Well, actually there are several, but the main one is motive. What does Bush (or anyone else) gain from all this? High approval ratings early in the term, when they don't even matter? An excuse to engage in two unpopular wars? Is that worth sending the economy into a recession for? I doubt it.

Thank the brilliant UN inspectors, who, after spending weeks in a country banned to them for 4 years, expected to find the WMDs all stacked up with a BIG sign on them. I'd really like to know just where they were "digging", since they couldn't seem to find a buried 75ft long jet aircraft. After that little debacle, I have so much faith in their ability to find mortar shells, artillery shells, aircraft bombs, missiles.... :eek:

It is a known fact that Iraq did at one time posess at least primitive chemical weapons. What happened to them is any Joe Average's guess. It is difficult to believe that the Iraqi military succeeded in transporting a national chemical arsenal undected despite US surveillance - America got pretty good at watching other nations for suspicious activity, what with the cold war and all that. It is known that Iraq was making a desperate effort to comply with the US ultimatum to disarm when Bush stepped up the schedule, which shows that they weren't stupidly beligerent, even if they were a bit naive. I'm pretty sure that a couple of US infantrymen are going to stumble upon a previously overlooked warehouse full to brimming with scary-looking devices with "IRAQ" freshly painted on the sides about two weeks before the election. But I don't think the average guy is ever going to know what the hell is really going on.

What Bush and his administration stand to gain from a chain of wars is very, very considerable. These men are businessmen first and foremost. Arms manufacturers benefit as America goes to war. American contractors benefit as they rebuild damaged cities and nations. Oil companies benefit as they use fear to lever more money from consumers. The government benefits from more puppet states which will vote their way in the UN and offer favourable trade agreements. The administration benefits as it uses the fog of war to cover domestic abuses of power. Don't believe that the economy is in recession - it's just the little guys that feel it. Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize big business, with war as the justification.

Somebody asked a while back why a cruise missile would be more scary than a kamikaze airplane. Well, it's because terrorists don't use cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are almost a signature weapon of the American armed forces, and are certainly restricted to the wealthiest of national militaries. Either implication you take from that, it's a lot scarier than a band of guys crashing airplanes. Which is not to say that this is what happened.

It is a known fact that Iraq did at one time posess at least primitive chemical weapons. What happened to them is any Joe Average's guess. It is difficult to believe that the Iraqi military succeeded in transporting a national chemical arsenal undected despite US surveillance - America got pretty good at watching other nations for suspicious activity, what with the cold war and all that. It is known that Iraq was making a desperate effort to comply with the US ultimatum to disarm when Bush stepped up the schedule, which shows that they weren't stupidly beligerent, even if they were a bit naive.


You have to wonder what the hell was going on there the 4 years the inspectors were banned;
1. when ex-Iraqi missile components show up in Jordan and Holland, with the UN tags still attached!!

2. when US troops find buried Mig-25s.

3. when Danes find buried "ordinary" mortar shells.

4. when 10-12 shells(WMDs) from the Iran-Iraq war that escaped destruction and show up on the side of the road, wired-up as booby-traps.


But I don't think the average guy is ever going to know what the hell is really going on.

Well, don't shout this too loud, there's a number of wise-men on here who will tell you just exactly what happened, who did it, and who the victims were, in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure that a couple of US infantrymen are going to stumble upon a previously overlooked warehouse full to brimming with scary-looking devices with "IRAQ" freshly painted on the sides about two weeks before the election

Which won't change who I'll be voting for...........Libertarians. :D

4. when 10-12 shells(WMDs) from the Iran-Iraq war that escaped destruction and show up on the side of the road, wired-up as booby-traps.

Could you describe a 10-12 shell, please? Weapons of mass destruction tend to make a poor choice of warhead for jury-rigged claymores.

Could you describe a 10-12 shell, please?

10-12 is the number found....not a measurement of the shell's diameter.

I believe the ones found were artillery shells, which would put them in the 122mm range(just an estimate) or larger.


Weapons of mass destruction tend to make a poor choice of warhead for jury-rigged claymores.

This isn't my fault!

Very compelling arguements.
It was either a smaller plane, or a cruise missle.
A Boeing 757 would have made much more devastation that it did.
Remember, it took TWO such planes to bring down the WTC, both MUCH larger buildings.

I also firmly believe that Flight 93 was brought down by American Navy Pilots.
They did so, becuase it was heading for the Whitehouse, and such an event, could not happen.
I cant say I wouldnt have made the same choice.

But as for the Pentagon, that is some very compelling evidence.


Here are some still pictures that were taken right after the crash (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

There was a conspiracy theory that ran on CBC television on a program called "The Fifth Estate" (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html)

It also deals with the Bush/Saud Connection, as well as some high profile interviews (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/interviews.html).

Although all this stuff does get the old brain waves bouncing around, they all just remain conspiracy theories. However, there are certain people who are masters of "creating a crisis". The Bush administration did that extremely well by trying to equate terrorism with the perceived threat to the US by Iraq and by trying to equate what happened on 9/11 also with Iraq.

You have to wonder what the hell was going on there the 4 years the inspectors were banned;
1. when ex-Iraqi missile components show up in Jordan and Holland, with the UN tags still attached!!

Bizarre, that one I'll grant, but still not evidence of WMDs.

2. when US troops find buried Mig-25s.

3. when Danes find buried "ordinary" mortar shells.

Neither of these qualify as WMDs though, do they?

4. when 10-12 shells(WMDs) from the Iran-Iraq war that escaped destruction and show up on the side of the road, wired-up as booby-traps.

Exactly what warhead was in these shells that you classify them as WMDs?

Good Shockwave, interesting points. but irrefutable evidence that there was an American Airlines Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon is available.

http://http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/pentvid4.jpg

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/hullpart.jpg

both pictures show the "a" in "American" on the upper part of the fuselage.

10-12 is the number found....not a measurement of the shell's diameter.

I believe the ones found were artillery shells, which would put them in the 122mm range(just an estimate) or larger.

That clarifies things a great deal. Artillery shells of that size can theoretically be used for very small non-conventional weapons, but are commonly armed with HE, HEAT, APDS, or other conventional warheads. The booby traps would fall into this latter category. A more suspicious find would be a cache of unarmed shells in the 180mm+ range.

Edit: Okay, that last was actually probably a pretty damned stupid thing to say. Shells can be primed or unprimed, but I think that they're pretty much manufactured specifically for one role, and do not have interchangeable warheads. Must be playing with Lego too much.