What really happened at the pentagon on 9/11? - Page 3

DaShiznit · 2004-09-04, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lartnev

I believe that the plane hit the ground and only the cockpit hit the pentagon.

And tbh, you could make a conspiracy theory out of anything.

Impossible. Look at this:

Compared with your average plane crash:

Why is there no wreckage, or even burn marks on the lawn? The only logical explanation is nothing hit it (the lawn), ESPECIALLY not a massive 757.

Infernus · 2004-09-04, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by DaShiznit

Impossible. Look at this:

Compared with your average plane crash:

Why is there no wreckage, or even burn marks on the lawn? Ergo, nothing hit it, ESPECIALLY not a massive 757.

The angle on that picture is wrong... you cant see the ground where marks would be...

And those marks are where the fuselage would be... guess where the fuselage was at the pentagon...

Lartnev · 2004-09-04, 07:06 PM

Well tbh you're average plane crash isn't meant to happen.

MrPaul · 2004-09-04, 07:08 PM

To the left you see scorches on the grass, and then the pic is cut off.

Now then, about the earthquake generating satelittes..

MrVicchio · 2004-09-04, 07:23 PM

Ya know, there are a few websites out there that will show you with absoulte CERTAINTY, that America NEVER landed a man on the moon. They have scientific backing, big degrees, pretty pictures and well drawn charts.

All proving the Appollo missions were a sham.

Yet those sites are dead wrong. Over a dozen men have walked the moon.

This sort of crap falls in line with those sites. Preying on the weakminded with lots of hyperbole and hate, with some pretty pictures tossed in.

Don't be one of those to prove PT Barnum was right.

MrVicchio · 2004-09-04, 07:24 PM

Oh one other thing, Missiles with war heads tend explode, up and out.

Where is the debris up and out from the missile?

Hmm?

Just another reason this is a lame fantasy for the weak minded to be sucked into.

MrPaul · 2004-09-04, 07:27 PM

I

you Vicchio.

Squeeky · 2004-09-04, 07:35 PM

Conspiracy Theories are retarded.

Vicchio said pretty much everything i wanted to say, but in natural Vicchio style. Thx

Lartnev · 2004-09-04, 07:42 PM

Gwan MrVicchio!

Ok some links I dug up using google:

Scientific Recreation: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4....Pentagon.html (Just a news article on it unfortunately)
Transcript for AA flight 77: http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$80 (Just to remind you that a plane did go missing)
Hunt the Boeing Answers: http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 (whilst not this film directly, hunt the boeing was one of the first conspiracy sites regarding the hit on the pentagon, well that I remember).
Eyewitness accounts: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...nce/witnesses/

There was also one other site which had some good pictures on it, but I can't seem to find it again.

MrVicchio · 2004-09-04, 07:59 PM

Hehe, this is one of those issues that drives me nuts. Yes there is not tail or visible wreckage at teh Pentagon. And the lack of video footage of the plane hitting makes it easier for people to make hay out of nothing. There are too many holes in this theory for it to carry water.

Why I ask, after seeing the WTC hit, is the thought that two other airliners were also highjacked and used or attempted to be used, as weapons so hard for people to believe??

DaShiznit · 2004-09-04, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Infernus

The angle on that picture is wrong... you cant see the ground where marks would be...

And those marks are where the fuselage would be... guess where the fuselage was at the pentagon...

Oh, ok. The angle on that picture is wrong. How about this picture?

Or this one?

Where is the rest of the plane? The tail? The wings? The fuselage may have gone into the building, but where the hell is everything else? Buildings don't just swallow planes. OK, there are a few burns from the inital explosion, but if the plane hit the ground (like uncle Sam said it did) where is the debris?

Dharkbayne · 2004-09-04, 09:16 PM

You are retarded.

firecrackerNC · 2004-09-04, 09:18 PM

For once, OMG plz dont kill me, for once I agree with.....with.......DHARK OMG!!

DaShiznit · 2004-09-04, 09:23 PM

Jesus Christ, I'm not saying I agree with these people. But some of teh evidence is undeniable. Again, Is everything they said true? Of course not. Do I believe this is a conspiracy? No. Are these people nuts? Oh, yeah. Am I arguing from their side? Yes. Only because I love playing the devil's advocate. Mwahaha.

MrVicchio · 2004-09-04, 09:33 PM

Did you look back on page one guy?

Posted pics of the debris.

Look, lets have a quick lesson from Physics 101 and Common sense 101.

What happens when your average airliner goes down? The pilots do EVERYTHING they can to save the plane. Thus they try to soft land the aircraft. And the NEVER fly them into concrete buildings. Thats just.. not a good idea.

With me so far? Great!

Okay when a normal crash occurs, what else happens? They slow the plane down as much as they can. This is to lower the effect of inertia. Inertia if you will recall is one fo those neat Laws of Motion. I.E. a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The slower the plan travels on impacts the less the damage to the structure right?

Okay good. Here's the big kicker.

That plane hit at over 350knts. Most airliners crash at less then 200 knots. Thats at least 150knts of force difference. It rammed into a concrete structure. The entire plane was litterally driven, by inertia, into the building. The fires, super heated by the fact they occured inside the building, melted most of the plane.

Is that enough for you?

Also, one question, LETS SAY YOU ARE RIGHT. It was NOT an airplane. okay, how the hell did they keep the hundreds of fire, rescue and clean up crews from not noticing all the plane wreckage INSIDE THE BUILDING?

If you think about it, for the crash to have been ANYTHING short of what the government said it was, would require the most massive cover up in the history of the world.