http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm Conspiracy theorists - 0 Pentagon - 1 One of the most interesting conspiracys of recent times. Anyway just thought i'd see what other people thought.
Is that all? You still can't really see anything. :/ Surely there must have been more than two cameras looking at the pentagon.
The plane looks VERY close to the ground in the video. Almost horizontal, how could the pentagon have not seen it coming?
And what do you suggest they do once they see the plane? Once a plane is close enough to gage where the thing is going to land, it's more than a little bit too late. It's like trying to dodge a car when it's a foot away.
If it hit the ground you would have expected to see marks on the ground, none of the photos of them putting the fires out have marks anywhere near that long on the ground. The point about not seeing it coming is more related to the fact that there were only 2 cameras on the plane.
With conspiracy theories, it is always interesting to see how every ordinary Joe who can hardly point out Iraq on a map suddenly becomes an expert air crash investigator, highrise architect and political sleuth. Watch out Woodward and Bernstein. [Jonny]: The Pentagon is a very big building. There can be hundreds of cameras everywhere recording away at a frame every few seconds (because 24 hours is a lot of recording tape), and they can still miss something as quick as an airplane flying into a wall at several hundreds of miles per hours if they don't happen to be pointed in the right direction and take their frame at the right moment. DougEdey: an airliner moves at about 550mph. So let's say you see a plane coming from a few miles away, bearing down on your home. What are you going to do? Call the movers? In about 6.5 seconds it is going to hit your wall. Barely enough time to think: "Hey, that isn't coming our way is it? Better get the h--". Even if it approached at landing speed (to make sure it hit the target), you are looking at 150mph, or 24 seconds if spotted from a few miles away. You can just about hit start evacuation, but unless you have the missile defense systems of an aircraft carrier, don't expect to stop it. Now, if the plane hit the ground, there should be marks, right? No. A plane can skim the ground very closely without actually touching it, due to the Ground Effect. Aircraft obtain increased lift and therefore better efficiency by flying very close to the ground. As an aircraft flares and descends the last few feet to the runway, ground effect causes a pronounced increase in lift. If not anticipated by the pilot this can cause the aircraft to rise suddenly and significantly — an effect known as a "balloon".
lol how retarded do the american goverment think we are, if thats a passenger plane then yodasarmpit is a turnip
The video proves nothing. Theres nothing conclusive about that, i couldnt even make out a plane in those clips but some white object for a brief second. If the government release this thinking its going to close the door on anything, they must really be retarded.
I'm not disputing the standard facts, there's no point because the US is perfectly capable of covering up anything, if there is anything to cover up. At least to an extent that we can never be 100%. But, I'm sure the pentagon must have it's own radar system, or at least a hookup into a national one. I mean, it's the biggest US building, arguably the biggest building in the world, it has somewhere very roughly around the 50,000 staff mark. It's target numero uno for any possible nuclear attack on the USA. It just doesn't make sense that you'd have a building that big, with that many critical staff in it(half the DoD is in it ffs) and not have some form of fairly serious radar and anti-misile tech stationed on, in, or near to it. If the white house has Missile batteries on its roof(it does) then I'm quite sure then pentagon has something too.
The Pentagon is just a big building that does a lot of government activity-it is by no means the only way the US government has of controlling its nuclear arsenal or commanding its military forces. Not by a longshot. This is just a convenient place for the civilian type workers to do their job. The reality is, this is an office building, hence the lack of radar or anti-missile/aircraft systems. And honestly, who would have seen something like this coming? What about air traffic controllers and the dissappearance of the aircraft once it got below radar level, and the fact that it never came back? Jeeze, these 9/11 conspiracy theorists are horrible about overlooking other facts or cause and effect issues. Not to mention US missiles are a hell of a lot more powerful than that.
the section the missile er plane hit had just been re-enforced to withstand a missile attack, the windows either side of the hole the missile er plane created were not broken so did the wings fold into the fuselage ? also where did the engines go ? as they werent found. i can see this being closed as you either believe the american goverment or you dont. btw if you do believe them then im sure nexxo can help you
Why do you asssume it has its own radar system, given that it has no external antennae whatsoever? The white house's 'missile batteries' on its roof are (from everything I have ever seen/read/heard about) little more than a few blokes with shoulder launched Stinger missiles, and they don't even have these guys up there the whole time - I'd go as far to say that they may even be a post-9/11 measure, and that the white house went undefended beforehand (supposition on my part, sure, but why are you so certain that it was defended in the absence of *any* visible defences, nor articles really speculating seriously on the defensive capabilities, rather than the 'omg nuclear reactor under the Pentagon' type lunacy?). Such weapons as Stinger are short range and aren't even guaranteed to shoot down anything as big as an airliner anyway (go read up on the cargo plane flying into Baghdad which got hit by an SA-7, a similar weapon to Stinger, and made an emergency landing anyway). Air defence in the US has always been something of an odd situation, the geographical isolation has meant the US has generally assumed that it is somewhat invulnerable to aerial attack bar a major effort from the Soviet Union (since no other enemy air force is or was capable of launching a strike from such distance). Since the Cold War ended, thatthreat was deemed to have diminished to almost nothing. NORAD still exists, but again, concentrates its defences and radar monitoring around the approaches to North American airspace over the pole, not downtown Washington (who's airspace is very busy anyway, having any anti-aircraft missile system on a hair trigger would be somewhat risky anyway). Missile attack is a different prospect altogether but given the technical difficulties in intercepting a missile, and treaties banning ABM systems, its too much of a jump IMHO to assume they really do have such systems operational. 9/11 to my mind happened generally as the 'official story' goes, it just demonstrated a complete lack of imagination on behalf of the US government and security/military establishment to seriously consider an attack using 9/11 type methods. Such a scenario is really not that great a mental leap, if we consider mythology, think about the Trojan Horse for goodness sake - a great power, confident (arrogantly so) in its own safety, gets defeated thanks to its own complacency when faced with an enemy willing to attempt unconventional and imagine methods. For those who consider it still so unplausible that Washington DC could have such poor air defences, consider the case of Mathias Rust, a 19 year old who managed to fly a Cessna from Finland all the way to Red Square in Moscow in 1987, evading the entire Cold War Soviet air defence network along the way. When he landed, Soviet officials were so confused and bewildered at what had happened that they did not arrest him immediately, believing instead that his actions must be part of some film sequence that was being produced with official approval!
The force created by explosions is often directed most forcefully in particular directions, such that in some cases people can survive very close to the blast whilst others get killed further away. I've seen footage from the recent Iraq war (filmed by the BBC, accompanying John Simpson in Northern Iraq) where the US accidentally bombed a combined US and Press convoy rather than an iraqi army position. Many of the film crew were injured, but many of those ahead further ahead of them in the convoy were killed, despite the bomb impacting much close to the vehicle John Simpsons lot were in. To me the assumption that just because some windows weren't broken doesn't mean anything. Significant parts of the engines were found, and photographs of them exist in the public domain. Other photographs of 757 debris are available. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html As to the wings folding, have you ever looked out of the window of an airliner on take-off and landing and seen the wings flexing? They are constructed as such they they are only as strong as they need to be, in the directions they will be stressed during flight, in order to save weight. The 757, over much of its wing, employs a 'stressed skin' construction whereby the outer surface provides much of the structural rigidity. Damage this and the wing can quite easily crumple. In addition, much of the wing is made from aluminium, which burns/melts/deforms at relatively low temperatures. Given the strength of impact, the way the wings are constructed, and amount of fuel onboard, to me its perfectly reasonable to assume that 1) the wings will break off very easily, and 2) the resultant fire will damage much of what would remain of the wing structure beyond recognition. I gotta love the way people assume there must be much of the plane left anyway, I mean have you seen many photos of aircraft that have crashed into the ground at high speeds (as opposed to lower speed crashes at shallow angles nearer landing or take-off). All of these show whats left after some air crashes...not much: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w710904.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w740303.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w870816.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w921004.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w941031.htm But I guess its easier to scream 'WHERES THE AIRCRAFT???!' than actually look into what air crashes can often looks like - a large lump of metal reduced into millions of small component parts sufficient that recognising much is difficult.
The absolute strongest part of an airliner is the joint between the wings and the body. It's where most of the airplane's weight rests, both on the ground and in the air. As such, the wing root is very strong, especially compared to the rest of the wing. The main wing is really just a box. It's front and back are the forward and rear wing spars, which are just long skinny bars of aluminum, with four rows of 100+ bolts locking them to the wing root. The tops and bottoms of the wings are aircraft aluminum, which is no thicker than the side pannels off a V1000. The wings buckled, but still retained their attachment to the airplane. Effectively, they did fold back to the fuselage, and were shredded as they were dragged into the Pentagon. As for the engine, bits and peices were found. See Will's post for photos.
The wing spars run almost parallel to the leading edge of the wing, and reach from the upper skin of the wing to the bottom. They're also rather thin. When the airplane hit the building, the right wing's leading edge all hit the building at about the same time. (The plane went in at an angle roughly matching the sweep in the wings.) That wing simply disentegrated, as Yoda said. It also blew out all the windows to that side of the impact, as the photos show. The left wing, however, hit at about a 45 degree angle, with the wing root going first. The front, and then the rear spars buckled, like a chunk of corrugated cardboard. The entire wing folded back against the airplane. Somewhere in this process, the engine and the wing parted company, leaving the engine free to go smashing through the building on its own. Really, most of an airplane is a thin aluminum box. As with most hard impact airliner crashes, the entire airplane disintegrated. Mix the bits of airplane with office furniture, lots of paper, and tons of shattered concrete and other building bits, burn it all for a couple of hours, and you get stuff a lot like what they were pulling out of the building.
Tell you what, finboz. The day you produce a degree in material physics, architecture or airplane engineering, I will take your consipracy comments seriously.
There's far, far more evidence that disproves the 'official story' than just this. You can't deny the footage is ambiguous at best. Loose Change uses the exact same images on that website to suggest that the interior trim, wheel hub and engine thingy (!) are not from a 757. What about this? http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm One could argue that this disproves entirely the chance of that white 'thing' being an airliner. Either way, I think it's safe to say someone is telling porkies.
