I looked into it further, and according to transcripts of Flight 93's black box recording, the hijackers intentionally crashed the plane before the passengers could break into the cabin. The tapes were played for the victims' families and none of them has come forth to dispute this transcript, so I now consider that issue settled.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
This thread from one of the most well known conspiracy-minded forums covers, in detail, why the official story of the Pentagon crash is plausible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CB_Brooklyn
I have yet to find evidence of "thousands of people" saying they saw planes crash into the towers. This evidence just does not exist. I have found evidence of people reporting missiles!
|
There are videos from many angles of the second impact, and I've seen at least two of the first plane hitting. I don't know what "evidence" you're looking for, and I don't know how you can look for evidence and not conclude that planes hit the towers, but the claim that missiles hit the towers is so absurd that if you don't believe planes hit them, there's no point in trying to convince you.
Quote:
|
There just isn't any evidence of planes crashing on 9/11. At the Pentagon, what we have is a round hole through multiple layers of concrete. I don't think an airplane could do that.... but a missile can. No damage to the building where the wings supposedly struck, and of course no sign of the wings, or most of the rest of the fuselage for that matter. No luggage. No sign of the rows of seats people were sitting in. Yet they were able to identify all the passengers from their DNA? This doesn't add up.
|
I don't mean this personally, but there are no words to describe how fucking sick I am of this argument. I'll give you a basic summary of it.
The Pentagon is the headquarters of our Department of Defense; it is designed to stand up to whatever an enemy throws at it. A plane striking an armored building will not punch a plane-shaped hole in the side of an armored structure like Bugs Bunny charging through a door. If you've ever been in a plane's window seat, you probably have seen the wings flexing and shaking in turbulence. They're not solid extensions of the fuselage and expecting them to stay rigid instead of folding back on impact is like holding your thumb and pinky out from your fist and expecting them to punch through rather than break as you punch a 1.5" firewall. If you've been in a plane, you've also seen that the top two thirds of the fuselage isn't much more than plastic and aluminum surrounding empty space. The backbone of the plane is under the floor, and that big steel beam is what punched the hole in the armored wall of the Pentagon. We think of planes being huge, and while the published height of a 737 is 44 feet, that's hangar clearance. The plane itself is little more than You can see scorch marks on the walls to the sides of the main hole, and you can see a gigantic generator (I think it was reported to weigh 40,000 pounds but I could be off,) that was pushed toward the outside wall by the impact of the wing, not outward by an explosion. You also have to ignore the eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the building, including a professional pilot, and the photos of light poles knocked down by the incoming plane.
Quote:
Besides, Rumsfeld is on record as saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Here's his quote and a link to the website of the Department of Defense for verification:
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...nscriptID=3845
|
So we can't trust a word of the official story, but a slip of the tongue by Rumsfeld proves a wild conspiracy theory? You can't pick and choose the bits that support your theory while disregarding the other 99%
Quote:
Wouldn't it be something if it turned out there were no hijackers and that the whole story was a lie from beginning to end...
There's a report from a local Cleveland station that Flight 93 landed safely after a bomb scare.
http://www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm
|
An article full of uncited sources and broken links from a site known to publish just about any conspiracy theory, regardless of merit. If you honestly believe that Rense is a valid source, then I'm done with this discussion.
[/quote]
"NOTE: Data are available from January 1995 through April 2007. "
What point are you trying to make? they're not in a database that contains no information for a period beginning almost 7 years before, and ending almost 6 years after, the incident in question. It seems like you're grasping for anything that backs up your unsubstantiated claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CB_Brooklyn
|
I see two videos of a spire falling and leaving behind a cloud of dust that had settled on it.
Please explain to me how phase conjugation would prevent an energy beam weapon from heating air.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr_alleycat
I know by the fact the building passed city inspections.
|
I work in a building that has passed inspections despite code violations that should result in it being shut down. There are firewalls cut of 6 inches above the suspended ceiling, miles of wiring run by unlicensed workers through walls with fireproofing not installed, A/C filters that aren't on the replacement list and are either clogged or missing, a gas leak that's dealt with by a fan venting to outside, defective fire doors, and a plethora of other violations. It's still open and occupied by 1700 people per day.