Interesting video about Pentagon & 9/11

C

Capt. Charlie

Moderator Emeritus
Right off the bat and for the record, I do not subscribe to Internet conspiracy theories, and some concerning 9/11 and Oklahoma City do nothing but send my blood pressure through the roof.

Yesterday, however, a friend sent me a link to this video, questioning the truth about a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon. I confess I know next to nothing about aircraft, and even less about aircraft accident reconstruction and investigation, but the video left me with questions.

Thoughts?

I will warn you ahead of time that a brief stroll around the site itself showed it to be a psychic / aliens / tinfoil hat site, but the video is interesting, none the less.
 
It is an interesting video, the kind of stuff that makes for their thriller films. I don't subscribe to hardly any conspiracy theories because it's just a bunch of imaginative speculation, often excuses for problems that can't be solved at face value as well.

If you look for something hard enough and find some odd examples you can make anything.

Don't you know that the Free Masons have had complete sway over the last 300 years history as well?:D
 
I work with aircraft. I have seen the video. Now some facts. I see 757s about once a week. It is a narrow body aircraft. The engines are close to the fuselage. In aircraft construction the densest parts are the engines.

For me it seems very plausable that the aircraft slammed into the building and only damaged it between the two engines. I would be willing to bet that the distance between the engines on a 757 is about the size of the hole in the Pentagon. The wings would have sheered off and spun into the building. At this point you have a lot of pulverized aluminium inside a brick building with alot of airflow(due to the courtyards). Add in several tons of burning Jet-A and you have an impromptu oven. The pieces are going to be burned and melted beyond recognition. No way you could reconstitute it like TWA 800. The round hole that they purport to be a missle strike could be from the engine hub, a landing gear or any other "solid" peice of wreckage.

Now as for why the FBI choses not to release the videos form gas stations and traffic cams, I don't know. I refer to my old stand-by: when was the last time the government ever did something smart?

The question remain that if that plane did not hit the Pentagon then where in God's green Earth is it? We know for a fact it took off. We know for a fact that there were people with families on board. If the government shot it down, where is the wreckage? If they did not, where are the people and the plane?

It raises some questions that are easily answered if you know a few things about aircraft. However it provides no alternate conclusions or possible explanations. At least with the Kennedy assassination everyone "knew" it was the CIA or KGB or LBG or KFC or...

I may have missed a few other things that struck me as completely wrong with the video, but I will have to watch it again and get back to you.
 
I remember that they postulated that cars would be blown off a bridge that the plane over flew. Not going to happen. The 757 is a relatively "small" aircraft, thus it has "small" engines. I have stood directly behind a DC-9 during taxi and barely felt a warm breeze. Not the DC-9 has smaller engines and they are situated higher up and not at full power, but my point is that unless you are directly behind the engine in relatively close proximity you will not feel the blast. The trust is very narrowly vectored. That is the whole priciple of jet propulsion.

The cars may have experienced wake turbulance, but a 757 is not going to blow cars clean off a bridge.
 
Wow. That guy's disertation makes my post look like a 3rd grade book report!

What I can't get over is even in the face of hard, well-laid out evidence there are still some in the tinfoil hat camp that disbelive it just because the government says so.
 
I remember seeing a documentary on something... possibly building materials, I don't remember now. Anyway they were testing a reinforced concrete-like material intended for bunkers. They showed footage of a fighter jet being flown into it in slow-motion. The jet just disintigrated, there was nothing there at all except a scortch mark on the well.

To me, there's nothing strange about no large plane pieces being found.
 
Yeah, I hear the whole plane-not-crashing-into-the-Pentagon theory was debunked; however, there's some interesting evidence out there in other 9/11 conspiracy theories: I've heard that the 757 and 767 don't allow their pilots to make high-G manouvers (like those they used to crash into the Twin Towers), but that those are also the only two Boeing commercial aircraft that are fitted with equipment that allows them to be controlled remotely when they're built.
 
Lots of questions?

If only one of the theories have merit, then all of it becomes a possibility, and with more pieces to the puzzle, it becomes a probability. My dad flew re-fuelers back in 53, and those re-fuelers don't have windows, and coupled with set shapes in 01 and a Thermite bunker buster, [there is a sample that was taken] ,[is the only way says a lot of professionals] those buildings could have pancaked and fell exactly straight down. Those planes could been remotely controlled, and there is one news report of one of the planes landing. I would love to search the bulk plane storage area in Ohio. They dropped those buildings. That's what a demo guy told me. Another point; the people that try their best to discredit the new info could actually be helping the bad guys, whether they be either foreign or domestic. Who ever they are they have no care for freedom. Or US. I say get a digital recorder and camera and keep your eyes peeled. If it happens again, it martial law, and that affects our freedoms our lives and our 1st,2nd,4th thru the 14th will be out he door. There are signs of the masses waking up, we may have a chance.
 
I've heard that the 757 and 767 don't allow their pilots to make high-G manouvers (like those they used to crash into the Twin Towers), but that those are also the only two Boeing commercial aircraft that are fitted with equipment that allows them to be controlled remotely when they're built.
Click to expand...

1. While Boeing aircraft may have controled limits on high-G manuvers, this is mainly for passenger comfort. The limiters can be disabled by the piot if needed. From what I am aware of, there is nothing on a Boeing aircraft that doesn't have an override that the pilot can use.

2. No airliner comes with equipment that allows them to be controlled remotely. Such equipment is both expensive and high maintanance. Both those aircraft are not fly-by-wire and need extensive modification to be flown remotely. No airline would buy aircraft that could be taken over by someone outside the plane.
 
Retarded to the nth degree.

"They dropped those buildings. That's what a demo guy told me."

I've met someone who does building demolition for one of the major companies. He absolutely scoffs at people who claim that either the Twin Towers or the Pentagon collapses were the result of controlled demolition.

Of course, he could be an enemy of the United States simply spreading rumors to get people to relax so they can do it again.

:rolleyes:
 
I live on Long Island.

I have family who were in the WTC and luckily made it out.

I have family and friends who are NYPD, NYFD and responded to the attack, they also survived.

I have coworkers who lost neighbors and close friends that day.

I am getting very ill of these tin foil hat wearing morons who know nothing about aeronautics, civil aviation, or civil engineering and structures pulling the asinine thoeries out of the reward facing brown hole. It is an insult to the lives of all those who were lost. If you REALLY know sometihng feel free to contribute. If you are just forwarding the harck comments made by an online nut job of "some guy who told you" then do us all a favor and STOP.

FYI my degree is in Aerospace Engineering. Nothing those planes did that day strikes me as impossible. The collapse of the WTC due to the sircraft from an engineering perspective looks entirely possible. Those REAL civil engineers I have spoke with concur. If peopel have a problem with me for making these statements then I suggest you take your ass to an accredited engineering school, learn structures, materials and a slew of other subjects. Study and learn real deductive reasoning techniques. Then come back and discuss this subject if you still think Bush and the aliens from Alpha Centauri caused the collapse. Until then though please shut up.
 
Some pretty hard photographic evidence that a plane may not have hit the Pentagon. I don't know if one did or didn't and I am no expert so take this post with a grain of salt. Planes leave wreckage and tear up the ground like the slide show states. If all of that jet fuel incinerated the entire plane then it must be fuel that burns without a flame because the explosion you see in the security film footage does not to me seem like a plane full of fuel exploded. Just my .02 cents.
 
"Some pretty hard photographic evidence that a plane may not have hit the Pentagon."

Oh?

And what about the eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

Craftily placed government moles?

Or the people who helped pull aircraft parts out of the Pentagon after the incident (I personally know two of them)?

More moles?


All of these websites have one thing in common...

The conveniently leave out or grossly misrepresent what doesn't support their own personal psychoses.
 
Well Mike that's why I said I am no expert. I am at work and tried to catch the clips in the video and when I saw the pics it didn't look like a commercial airliner laying in the perfectly cut grass. That's all I said. I don't put to much faith in conspiracy theories nor do I know anyone who was there so I don't have a whole lot of first hand evidence. But I concede that my OPINION is wrong and your eyewitnesses are right.
 
Weren't there recently a couple of photos taken from a security camera which showed the plane hitting the Pentagon? I remember it from the news on my local station. A big deal was made of it at the time because it was the only such photo released.

I knew somebody on American Flight 11 and I have to be "tolerant" of people in my workplace who spout malarkey about how the government blew things up that day. Makes me feel bad.:(
 
I'll also add that I never said that the photographs in this clip are the ONLY ones of the crash site. There could very well be more and the producers of the video only wanted to show the ones that support THEIR point of view. Just to be clear.
 
The people who made that video, and those who keep proposing the "no aircraft hit the Pentagon" theory are simply uneducated about structural design, aircraft design, and physics in general.

A modern passenger aircraft is essentially a giant soda can with wings, filled with jet fuel. Throw it at a reinforced concrete structure at 700 miles per hour, and then wonder why there are a.) no neat, wing-shaped holes in the building, and b.) few pieces left to neatly puzzle together, like they had with TWA 800 which blew up in the sky and wasn't subjected to an impact event and a subsequent 1,000+ degree fire.

:rolleyes:

There's just no cure for willful ignorance. People who want to believe that kind of junk will believe it regardless of the evidence.

Never mind that hundreds of commuters on the Beltway saw the low-flying 757, and never mind that the impact was both witnessed and recorded by surveillance videos. I swear, if we didn't have extensive news footage of the WTC impacts, we would have the same people stating that no plane ever hit the Twin Towers. Cheney and Rumsfeld probably planted the demolition charges personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top