stevo

IF the govt shot down flight 77 because it was hijacked and heading to the whitehouse or pentagon or what have you there would be no reason to cover it up. All the govt would have to say is, "Two hijacked planes crashed into the WTC, see. We had to shoot this one down to save the lives of people on the ground."

If they did shoot it down, thats all they would have to say and the American public would wholly understand. At least I would. There would be no reason for a cover up.

As for the rest of this thread, Do you remember the pictures of the Penn crash site? A black whole in the ground. I don't remember seeing any wreckage. The plane desintegrated on impact. Like opacfan said, the only dense part of a plane is the engines, the rest is nothing more than an aluminum tube and some apulstry. Aluminum melts at relatively low temperatures. I've melted aluminum tubes in fires in my back yard. I doesn't have to be that hot. Around 700 degrees I think.

BUT, to entertain this theory...I could think the only reason the govt would have covered up the pentagon crash is because a terrorist or terrorists had infultrated our military and it was a terrorist agent that attacked the pentagon with a military jet or missle. At the same time the Govt had to shoot down flight 77 because it was hijacked. Then the safest thing for the govt to do would be to say flight 77 crashed into the pentagon to save the fear that would be caused when the public finds out that our military had been infultrated. But I don't belive this. I still think it was a 757 that crashed into the pentagon. I saw the pictures and it looked like a plane crash to me.

Lasereth

The only problem I see with this theory is the actual physics of a plane crashing at those speeds. The video says the plane was going over 500 MPH. Do you know what happens to a plane that crashes into a wall at over 500 MPH? It atomizes. It turns into <I>dust</I>. This is proven with experiments of nuclear reactor defense systems.

If the plane really hit at over 500 MPH then I'd believe that there's nothing left in a heartbeat.

If the plane wasn't going that fast then it's an entirely different story.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

tsarman

Tinfoil hats anyone. I've seen the video several times and it is compelling, but so is the X-Files. Makes for a good story, but stranger things have happened.

Willravel

tsarman - Let's have some perspective here. This theory does not involve little green men being grown by the government. The X-Files is very entertaining, but if you think it's compelling you might not know what 'compelling' means. This conspiracy actually has some very serious, and REAL, questions that do not have answers.

Lasereth - that was exactly what I thought (great minds, eh?). The thing that doesn't fit with that is that only the wings and tail seemed to atomize. The hole punched in the steel reinforced building went through many walls. Then after it broke down walls it atomized. I can't accept the atomization theory with those facts. That leads me to think there's more to that.

hulk

That's just the thing Las, it is pretty much impossible for a 757 to be going that fast at ground level.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

jdionne

45 minutes before the "crash" flight 77 diasappeared from radar. One could speculate that they had time to remove a transponder from flight 77, and strap in on a
'smart" stinger. When the radar blip returned, the plane appeared smaller, faster, and more maneuverable. (like a fighter jet)
We've all seen the CNN footage of the "smart bomb" being remotely steered into it's intended target.

so what if...........

TexanAvenger

Some of these theories are well-founded, backed by evidence (whether you buy it or not), and stem from a healthy wish to question the government's motives in our everyday lives... some of them seem like nothing more than paranoid ravings. But through my own research and looking at the "evidence" posted here I am absolutely NOT convinced that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The main things that convince me are the issues of the nose-cone, lack of damage to lawn and rest of building, lack of wreckage, the circular punchout, and the fact that a 757 cannot fly that fast, that low. As for the atomization believers here, that jet "atomized" against that wall at a higher speed, and with a considerably stronger and sharper nosecone, than a 757, without punching a hole in the wall. How then did the 757 punch through MULTIPLE walls?

I grew up with military on both sides of the family, and especially around planes since one side was air force and the other eventually moved into working at the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks and Boeing. There is absolutely no way a 757 can punch a hole like that, and if you believe it is than you've obviously not done research on the subject, not seen flight and demolition tests, or just blindly believe whatever it is that you're told to. There are, however, a few types of missiles that are made to puncture such walls, some of them partially or completely classified. As for the people that died in the Pentagon, I would not completely rule out that they could've been considered "acceptable losses." Military strategists, unfortunately, factor in such things.

While I can't even begin to concieve what the purpose of it might've been, who did it, or if it was even for a cause, I wouldn't just knock it because it doesn't make sense. Much of the time, people do things that seem to have no real basis in logic originally but turn out to make sense in the end, for good or otherwise.

And though this on a tangent, I saw somebody mentioning the idea that the WMD were made up in Iraq. While I don't agree with how we did it or how we're running the show now, it shows ignorance to believe that Iraq didn't have them. Given, I don't know that I buy into the idea of nuclear weapons ar all, but do you know how small a virus bioreactor can be? I've seen research on ones about the size of your standard guitar amp, and that's just public sector work. But even assuming they were the size of an oil drum, do you know how many of those you could fit in an 18-wheeler? Enough that it should make you uncomfortable to think of them as a mobile unit. Because, really, it makes me more than uncomfortable to know that most of the people around me are as blissfully ignorant as sheep.

Thanks for your time

Willravel

Glad you are able to keep an open mind about the Pentagon murders.

We're still waiting on WMDs. If they find them, Bush's re-election might be justified, but I doubt we'll find them.

Raleighbum

Interesting thread, guys. Very interesting.

hulk

I thought it was pretty much a given that they don't exist...

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Willravel

I don't think they had them, but I don't deny the possibility that there were. We have no proof either way. There could have been some that were taken to Syria or Iran before the start of the Second Gulf War. We'll probably never know for sure. Don't take that to mean that I supported our illegal attack on Iraq, though.

roadkill

I have just one question for this topic.

Assumeing that all this is true, where would the goernment stop to get what it wants. Apperently human lives aren't a problem to sacrifice. What is the limit for the government to get what it wants?

Willravel

The limit, assuming that the government as a whole is guilty, would be whatever they could get people to believe. People will believe that Jessica Lynch was mistreated by Iraqi doctors and that she was shot and stabbed by Iraqi soldiers (actually she was not shot or stabbed or mistreaded by Iraqi doctors, in fact she was actually given blood before dying Iraqi civilians were given blood). The thing is that you can't plunge people into something that is far fetched. If the tax rate were to suddenly skyrocket with some bogus story, people might not believe it (although some of the sheeple in America, and even the rest of the world, will believe anything they see on CNN or hear from the President of the Imperial States of America). It's a matter of convincing people that their cause is patriotic and is the right, christian thing to do. It's amazing what people will do if they think it's what God wants.

stevo

This thread is still running? You are all freaks.

stevo

What the hell was she given blood for if she wasn't shot or stabbed? I still stand by my statement. You are all freaks.

Willravel

You will not refer to ANYONE on this board as 'freaks'. stevo22 JESSICA LYNCH WAS INVOLVED IN AN AUTO ACCEDENT. SHE SUSTAINED INJURY FROM THAT ACCEDENT. SHE WAS RUSHED TO A LOCAL IRAQI ER. SHE WAS GIVEN BLOOD BECAUSE OF HER INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THAT ACCEDENT. If you insist on arguing with people over something as common knowledge as this (the BBC already came out with a public apology for covering the false story), AND you call people freaks, AND you think that paranoia is a place for one sentence blanket arguments, you are very much mistaken.

The logical conclusion to draw from your statement is that unless someone is shot or stabbed in Iraq, they would not need blood. I think you need to do some research into human bloodloss and possible sccenerios that would result in bloodloss before you make more blanket statements.

whocarz

Calling a roadside ambush an "auto accident" is a little disengenious, don't you think?

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Willravel

Are you serious?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/3028585.stm
http://www.nbc6.net/news/2209690/detail.html
Don't you find it odd that she remembers NOTHING of what happened? And how if she remembers nothing that happened does the press KNOW hat she fired her gun like Rambo on Midol?!
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=217758

You've got to be kidding, whocarz. An excelent example of disingenuous is the story that everyone was force fed.

roadkill

Where in the facts was it a 'ambush'?

Just to get both sides of the story.

Jesus Malverde

I just saw this flash movie, and I must say it is troubling.

Looks like I have to jot this down in my "book of questions to ask God when I die."

__________________
...I'm that cat by the bar toasting to the good life...

xxSquirtxx

Hmm...I'm not sure how you get that from snopes, actually.

Anyway. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...tagoncrash.htm

__________________
.

Willravel

xxSquirtxx, thank you for actually contributing. Please allow me to address each of the points made by truthorfiction.
1. The article on the bomb oroginally used in the attack on the pentagon was removed from the internet promptly. Unfortunatally, none of the reports have been surfaced. Ruling: Tie
2. This question is obviously manufactured. No one with even a basic knowledge of the crash would ask this. The impact DID do damage to the inside of the building. The problem there is that the damage it did is not consistant with damage from a 757. The hole it poked was far to small, while still being very much circular, to accomidate the fusaloge of the 757. It could not have crumpled into a perfect cylander during the crash. Ruling: Conspiracy
3. I love how the author refers to "video from a security camera at the Pentagon", because there is only one video declassified, and it does not show the impact. That automatically undoes this argument. Although the supports of the pentagon are really really strong (they have a different design structure than normal reinforcement, using more of a corkscrew design). Also, there was NO wing or tail damage on the wall. There were not even marks! Sorry, kiddo. Ruling: Conspiracy
4. We all know there was basically no damage to the lawn from the attack. The sand and gravel being there is moot. Ruling: Conspiracy
5. Same as answer #3, indeed. While the wings did not have the tensile strength necessary to puncture the walls, the notion that they did not even make a mark on the walls is absolutely offensive to your intelligence. Ruling: Conspiracy
6. Stupid question. No one asked this. Of course it impacted. Ruling: Stop making up questions, truthorfiction!

Final ruling: Conspiracy wins!

As far as the other considerations listed, you need to accept the dacts about the crash before you can go on a wild goose chase. The simple fact is that on the information available, making an accusation would be a stab in the dark at best. It would be irresponsible for me to accuse the Bush administration or terrorists for this. There is NO evidence to point at either. People asking for an accusation usually are already dead set against this. Too bad.

Oh before I forget, radar has never been able to tell what kind of aircraft it is seeing. ll it can do is say there is a large object moving through the sky. Obviously SOMETHING hit the pentagon. It was probably not a 757.

Zeraph

Crazy stuff. There isn't really enough information to believe either way. Definetely seems to be some holes. Wouldn't be surprised either way. I consider myself mostly a realist, and in real life anything can happen.

abscondo

Paranoia will destroy ya.

onewolf

Hey Willtravel (you appear to be the self-annointed leader of the conspiracy theorists on this subject at least, so I'll address you) - I have posted several arguments on this thread. How about addressing them?

Grasshopper Green

Though provoking thread. I remember listening to the radio on 9-11 right after the Pentagon was hit, and the announcer said something along the lines of it looking "like it had been bombed"...no mention of anyone seeing a plane flying into it.

One other thing that has disturbed me since 9-11 is the limited coverage about the Pentagon. Yes, the buildings in New York killed more people, but the Pentagon is the heart of the American military; you'd think (at least I would) that there would have been more coverage about the attack on it.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

welshbyte

Well yeah, but you'd also understand that the pentagon lets less journalists in due to national security

__________________
There are only two industries that refer to their customers as "users". - Edward Tufte

Willravel

Okay, onewolf. I’ll start with your first post on 10/14.
Yes this crash is very much different than other crashes in the fact that this crash was supposedly much faster than the average crash. This fact was released to us by the official representative of the crash back in late 2001, after much speculation from the news networks. The supposed speed was in excess of 300 mph (not 500+ mph). Unfortunatally, as I have stated before, this speed is almost impossible at that altitude. I don’t put any stock in what people said they heard. Most of my conclusions are drawn from the pictures, facts about planes, and general or specific physics and engineering. I could care less if people said it sounded like a missle or santa clause.

Second post on 10/14

Yes, a plane that went into the wet, soft ground was difficult to retreive parts from. Give me a break. There is no logical comparison between these two crashes.

I am not the self appointed leader of anything. I just give a shit. If you care to look back, I already addressed your questions.

whocarz

Are YOU serious? Did I say ANYTHING about her being little miss Rambo and kicking ass? No, I simply mentioned that her unit was AMBUSHED and she and a few others were captured. Don't try to tell me some bullshit about how it was an auto accident. I saw the Al-jizzera footage, with a dead soldier lying behind the truck, and the warehouse full of American corpses, and the captured Americans. Whatever. You believe whatever the fuck you like, I'm done with this idiotic thread, and I'm done reading all your hostile responses to others with differing opinions.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Willravel

Aparently your opinion of hostility differs from mine. I WAS taking an oppoisite view to your opinion, but I do not consider myself by any means your enemy or antagonist in this matter.

This thread is here for the sharing and DEBATING of ideas. If you don't want to debate, that's fine. Enjoy your read and move on. I never forced you you post. And, if I might make a suggestion, relax.

I was originally explaining to roadkill that the Jessica Lynch fairy tale is an excelent example of how the media is able to get what they want (war support) by manufacturing, controling, and shifting information. Then stevo22 chimed in about how the only way to bleed in Iraq is to get shot or stabbed, to which I explained how she WAS in an accedent (If you choose to do your homework on this: she was not actually injured directly by enemy weapons, but by a crash. I did not say what caused the crash, so I was not wrong. What caused the crash was an attack.). I hope this clears it up for everyone.

Zeraph

Keep the anger to a minimum, this is the internet, we don't know you personally so it just makes you look immature. Besides (not that I'm saying no one else does it) how can you let people you dont even know or have ever even saw get you angry?

Willravel

It might be best to get back to the 747 and the Pentagon. Jessica Lynch already has a thread. I on ly brought her up to illustrate my answer to a question. Let's not forget the main focus of this thread.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Localhost

That's why commerical aircraft have transponders. If you've ever seen a control tower's radar panel you will see the plane's blips and their code right next to it.

Nothing personal, but you've been preaching the forum rules everytime someone gets testy with you, yet looking back on your posts you act the same way. Calm down.

Willravel

This was actually taken from a CNN report in which they interviewed the people who were monitoring the plane (I'll try to find it later). Unfortunatally neither the transponder nor the black box survived, thought the terrorist's passport meraculously did.

"...yet looking back on your posts you act the same way." I'd really like you to point out where I called people idiots or crazy, because I can't find those posts. I call bs when people say things like "My cousin was there!" because the facts they put down are not consistant with the facts that are made clear in the pictures. I also redily defend my position, but I've never been rude. I've not broken one forum rule since I joined TFP, except that I accedentally posted a dead baby joke in Humor before reading the rules.

Thanks for posting.

Localhost

I probably jumped the gun, something made me think you were bitter in a lot of statements you made...
Looking back through that's probably what made me get a bad impression of you. My fault, sorry.

__________________
Powered by Opensource Software

Faygo

All I know is there is a hell of a diffrence between a plane crashing into the ground and into the side of a building.

All add more later.

Willravel

Um, thanks faygo?

Neeways, time for an update:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10574

Aparently, those who are questioning the official report (those who have an inquisitive and skeptical nature, and are not insane conspiracy theorists) have some company. Jimmy Walter, a millionare activist, has say that he would pay $100k to anyone who could actually prove from a physics/engineering perspective that the pentagon and twin towers actually were damaged according to the official report.

"It wasn't 19 screw-ups from Saudi Arabia who couldn't pass flight school who defeated the United States with a set of box cutters," he said. He dismissed the official Sept. 11 commission report, saying, "I don't trust any of these 'facts."'

I thought that was intersting.

This next part is a commentary. It is a little rough, so only go in if you can take some critisism. Spoiler: I'm beginning to lose faith in a lot of people because of their readieness to believe whatever the government tells them. Before I started questioning what happened on 9/11, I was a republican who was devoted to my party and whatever it told me. As soon as I saw building 7 colapse, I knew it was controled demolition. When I heard the leader of my party say that it was a plane that caused this, I was heart broken. I had devoted myself to a group that is more than willing to lie to me for reasons that are still partially beyond me. People neeed to understand that this is not a theory. There is plenty of evidence that contradicts what was officially recognised as truth. Because of this evidence, there is reason enough to reopen the investigation into what really happened. Once radio contact was lost with the flights, why weren't jets immediately sent up ("scrambled") from the nearest military airport, something that according to the FAA's own manual is routine procedure? Why did the administration's story about scrambling jets change in the days following the attacks? How did building 7 collapse? How did the 757 that hit the Pentagon make an almost perfect 16 foot diameter hole in the 3rd ring with no visable wrekage and very little fire damage? Why are there no windows on the plane pictured hitting the WTC? Why are there reports from the heroic firefighters and policemen in the WTC saying that there were bombs going off when officially there was only one real explosion in each tower? There are plenty of contradictions that can be found by anyone willing to give reality a try.

So why are people defending the official story without question? Well, that's simple actually. People realize that the government and politics is something that is consistant in their lives, as well as being really complicated. It is something that people depend on and know only a small part of. We learn from the time we are in diapers to trust the government and that conspiracy theorists are crazy and should not be given the time of day because they are not patriotic. The problem with this? The government is run by people who serve themselves. They have agendas that run deeper than public service. The Haliburton question is an excelent example of how a political officer uses his post to serve himself (again, do your own research on this). When I ask people to consider what I am saying, and then proceede to question 9/11 - something that effected americans like very little ever has - people are sudddenly patriots with duty to disregard any possible fault in the governemnt. Every major political change in history has been carried out by citizens, the government is always the one to follow. The moment we start being led by the government is the moment the government stops being "of the people, by the people, and for the people". It's time for YOU to be a patriot. Thanks.

Captain Nemo

Did anyone catch this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rum...t93/index.html

Mephisto2

Whatever happened to Opie?


Mr Mephisto