Interesting video about Pentagon & 9/11

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.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but there are idiots out there saying almost the same thing. Morons are claiming left and right that there were explosive charges planted in the WTC to drop them and that the Gov't set it up or at the least knew about it.

These people are idiots. Unfortunately say something loud enough and often enough and people start to believe it.
 
This comment isn't really about the airplanes but rather how too many people base their arguments on the impossibility of doing something. That is sometimes one of the points made in discussing the Kennedy assasination.
 
Many thanks to those that replied with rational and intelligent responses. That was exactly what I was hoping to see here.

As I said, I don't believe for a heartbeat in the conspiracy theories that seem to be so abundant, but as I'm the original box o' rocks when it comes to things aeronautical, the video left me with questions, not about a conspiracy, but about what really happened, and how. I don't like unanswered questions. You've answered those, and hopefully extinguished the concerns of others as well. Thank you :) .

I don't know what it is that makes some of these outlandish theories so.... well, so delicious to some people. Maybe it's similar to the thrill we get from a good horror movie, or the fun scare the kiddies get from believing in the Monster Under The Bed. Just another human phenomenon, I guess.

My apologies to anyone here that suffered losses on that horrible day. It was never my intention to dredge up painful memories.
 
Okay Mr. Gullible, let me get this straight.

Someone concocks a sceme to "make it look like a plane hit the pentagon" and coincidentally, it is just a little after two planes hit the WTC and a fourth is brought down over PA.

I was watching NY television on the morning of 911. I saw the film by the French TV crew showing the first plane's impact which the local station picked up and broadcast. As they were talking and showing a shot of the WTC with one tower burning, the second plane came into view, not doing some heavy G-force manuver, and hit the second tower. The stuned silence of the announcers was erie. Just like mine.

And I quess Al-Qiada is really just a psuedo Boy-Scout organization and doesn't pose a threat to America. Listen, quick send me your bank account number and pin number. Do I have some land for you.

What a bunch of bozos.
 
"I don't know what it is that makes some of these outlandish theories so.... well, so delicious to some people."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Some people simply are incapable of feeling safe or right unless they are able to focus on some sort of expansive, extensive conspiracy. This supposed "quest for truth" gives them the kind of personal validation that they are otherwise incapable of obtaining.
 
Some pretty hard photographic evidence that a plane may not have hit the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Check out Eghad's first post on the matter. Actualy take the time to go through the thread. Then you have hard photographic evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

Planes leave wreckage and tear up the ground like the slide show states.
Click to expand...

Look at Eghad's link. If a plane never hits the ground, it does not tear it up.

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.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the news on 9/11? Live video of the Pentagon burning. Or did the CIA air that too?

An American 757 hit the Pentagon. If the evidence in the link does not convince you then nothing will.
 
Did you watch the news on 9/11? Live video of the Pentagon burning. Or did the CIA air that too?
Click to expand...

You could see the Pentagon burning all they way over at Ft. McNair in southwest DC on 9/11. I can personally vouch for that.
 
Some people simply are incapable of feeling safe or right unless they are able to focus on some sort of expansive, extensive conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Some people, or all people? After all, it was either Al Qeada, Bin Laden, Mohamad Atta, George Bush, the Illuminati, the aliens from Alpha Centauri, etc etc etc ad-nauseum who conspired to commit the attacks of September 11.

I guess it just depends which side of the fence you reside in determining who the conspiracy minded nutcases are.
 
"You could see the Pentagon burning all they way over at Ft. McNair in southwest DC on 9/11. I can personally vouch for that."

I could see the smoke pall from the Pentagon from Route 50 in Fairfax.


"Some people, or all people?"

Some people, i.e. those who are bound and determined to find the "real" cause of the events in question, the people who are sure that the official, accepted, and evident cause of an incident is nothing more than a vast governmental coverup which involves the planting of plane parts in the Pentagon to cover up the missile strike and the spiriting away of an entire jetliner and its passengers to parts unknown and likely shallow graves.

Yeah, right.

Or, similarly, those who are bound and determined to prove that the WTC towers didn't collapse because of aircraft strikes, but because secret shadow squirrel agents detonated demolitions charges in the building to bring it down, and so forth and so on until I'm ready to puke.

I thought that explanation was evident from the context of the entire discussion. My apologies if it was not.
 
You guys are taking me the wrong way here. Perhaps I am not explaining myself in a way you can understand. I believe a plane did hit the pentagon. I was just stating (an opinion, not a fact) that the video that Capt. Charlie posted shows some pretty well manipulated evidence that could sway peoples opinion.

In the case of being able to see the smoke from the pentagon being on fire. No really? I can see a small brush fire's smoke plume from 3 miles away. That doesn't prove that it had to be a plane

I did go through Eghad's link. I found it very interesting. I thought it was spot on. You don't have to convince me that a plane did hit the Pentagon and the WTC buildings, and I'm not trying to convince otherwise.
 
OK, Hangfire, your first post made it seem as if you were buying into these theories.

As for the fireball of the plane hitting the Pentagon, take a look at the fireball generated by the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, and compare it to the fireball at the Pentagon.

You'll see very similar characteristics. Now compare those to video of a missile or some other device packed with high explosives hitting a target. The fireball has different properties and behaviors..
 
All I can say is, I can't believe all of these ridiculous conspiracy theories people buy into. People seem to accept that there are screw ups in civilian life, but when we get to government and/or military operations, everyone is suddenly super-eficient and there has to be some big conspiracy to everything. :rolleyes:

A plane hit the pentagon. The government did not plan or know about 9/11. Roosevelt did not allow Pearl Harbor to happen. They were screw ups, pure and simple.
 
One must also remember that this conspiracy theory is extremely popular with white supremecist groups because in the end, it concludes that.....
....shhhhhh..........the Israelis were behind it all!

That should tell you all you need to know.
 
It's hard to make much of anything from that clip.

Airplanes are made mostly of flammable stuff. That includes the aircraft body itself, which is an aluminum-magnesium alloy. Remember lighting magnesium strips in chemistry in high school? Aluminum does the same thing only it takes a hotter fire to keep the process going. That's why you can't weld aluminum unless you do it under helium or argon. It burns and forms an oxide barrier that keeps the two pieces apart in air. Airplane fuselages are flammable in ordinary air. Look at any airplane crash where there are still recognizable pieces left. The edges of the remains rarely look ripped apart. They look like the end of something that burned. That's because that's what happened to the part of the plane that's gone. It's either on the ground as a powder mixed with dirt or it blew away in the plume with the smoke.

The security video showing no airplane doesn't say a lot. What was the frame rate? It looks low. I have a DVR that allows me to record 4 cameras at full frame rate (30 fps), but I don't run it at that speed. 3 fps is fast enough to catch any nasty events on my lawn, and I get much more recording time that way. Who knows if they were doing the same thing in the surveillance video shown? If they were, a 757 could going 500+ mph could easily slip by between frames and never be seen.

I don't pretend to know what Boeing allows its aircraft to do and not do. I have designed avionics and they CAN do that. But what sort of liability do you think they would face if they prevented a pilot from executing a high-force maneuver that might otherwise have saved a planeload of passengers? There would be no way to hide from that liability. It would be visible in the hardware or software of any like 757 for all to see. It's always been my understanding, from when I was at Bendix, that the pilot and nobody else flies the plane.

So I'm not all that impressed.

Now if I personally inspected the site before anybody got there and couldn't find any engine parts, like bearings or fluid tubing and fittings (made of stainless steel), then I'd start to wonder. But the film didn't say anything about that, and such parts would not be discernable from the distances shown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top