Ok then, you guys are all right; there is no conspiracy theory and that was a plane, because obviously you know without a doubt. Roto get's extra 'right' points for being American, as do you yoda for 'exposing cracks' in a conspiracy theory. It's really pathetic how you guys can't just accept that you're never going to know and genuinely feel like what you believe is the unfaltering truth. We're never going to know, so make your decision and respect that other people will make other decisions that won't neccessarily support yours. That's life. It does not mean, Roto, that people who disagree with your opinion are ignorant. Everyone just grow up.
There is no doubt that governments are capable of many things, and the US government is more than capable of targeting the Pentagon with a missile. I still question what reason would the US government have for attacking the Pentagon ? We watched live on TV as the two planes hit the World Trade Centre, that didn't give the US much time to plot to target the Pentagon. 8:46am Flight 11 hits North Tower (WTC) 9:02am Flight 175 hits South Tower (WTC) 9:37am Flight 77 hits the Pentagon 10:07am Flight 93 crashes/shot down So from the first impact at 8:46am they had 51 minutes to contrive the conspiracy to attack their own pentagon building with a missile and take down Flight 77 without any witnesses. They also in that time had to source Boeing 757 parts to scatter over the Pentagon crash site There is more than enough evidence (in my mind) to prove that this was an attack by one of the hijacked aeroplanes.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem i think it is far more plausible (not necessarily the 100% truth) that the attack on the pentagon, as well as the twin towers, was coordinated and carried out by the terrorists. sure, it may be a massive coverup by the government, but i think it's highly unlikely. i'm no expert. i've looked at the few photos that are available. looks like a large, fairly fragile object crashed into a very dense building to me. if the gov't shot a missile into the pent as some people suggest, where did this missile come from? was it one of ours? if not, where did we get it from? with what money? who from? if it was one of ours, someone would have noticed it missing from the inventory, or the budget. if it wasn't one of ours, at least two would know where we got it from: the person who got it, and the perosn who gave/sold it to them. sure, they could be silenced in some way or another. but something of this magnitude would have a whistleblower somewhere. abu ghraib abuses were supposed to be secret, a little conspiracy of their own. that got exposed. domestic wiretaps were secret until someone leaked. cia secret prisons? leaked. and those are litle things as far as conspiracies go. something of this magnitude is too hard to cover up without massive effort and money. too many people in the beauracracy would notice a discrepancy, and not all could be silenced.
Honnestly? Someone trying to claim that the video shown will disprove conspiracy theories needs to take a step back, and look at the video -- All you see is a slight white blur, indistinguishable as missle OR plane. People will make their own descisions based on what they want to believe, based on whatever ev idence suits their cause. -Cameron
Missile or plane? If the US wanted to make it look like a plane had flewn into the pentagon, they'd fly a plane into the pentagon. I don't know where the whole missile thing comes from.
ok nexxo has resorted to swearing, you have started name calling and telling LIES. the world watched 9/11 live not just america and i can say for sure you didnt see a plane crash into the pentagon as if you did we could watch the footage and end this discussion NOW, instead we have a few frames that prove nothing. i still cant believe how worked up you are getting (and you nexxo) just because i have a difference of opinion. the next thing you will be saying is JFK was killed by a magic bullet.
For the record i dont beleive in this conspiracy theroie but its been interesting watching the discussion. Glad some of you found the video interesting though
I think it is a bit strong to call "FFS" swearing and Roto as lying. Moreover while you have been venting your indignance, I am still waiting for you to challenge our arguments. I would now quote Occam's razor, but monkeyboy beat me to it (in Latin, no less : entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Basically, you should not make an explanation more complicated than necessary (or: common things commonly happen). It is much more likely and feasible that some terrorists took control of an airliner and flew it into the Pentagon, than that the U.S. govermnent concocted a clever complex secret conspiracy in which they flew a missile into the building, trying to pull the wool over our eyes by simulating a plane crash without a plane to show for it! Trust me, if the U.S. government really faked a plane crashing into the Pentagon, they would have rigged it so that there was a huge friggin' plane sticking tail-up out of the smoking ruins for us to see in all its plane-like glory. Their (forged) security camera footage would show high-resolution footage of the plane flying into the wall, step-by-step frame, with the whites of the passengers' terror-stricken eyes practically visible. There would be no doubt in our minds whatsoever. Because they would leave nothing to doubt. Do you really believe that such a devious, clever, nefarious government would try and fake a plane crash without a plane? It would be much easier to arrange flying some decomissioned airliner into the Pentagon by remote control, than to use a missile and try and cover up the inconsistencies. And what about the actual missing airliner and passengers? If they didn't crash into the building, where did they go? Or are they, and all their grieving relatives in on the consipracy too? Trust me, I am not the one who believes in magic.
When did I lie? I stated American Citizens watched the second plane hit the Pentagon - I did not say I did. And I assure you, my Dad worked as an engineer for Boeing Aircraft Co for 30 years, his last assignments before layoffs being work on the 757 and 737 lines of aircraft which were manufactured in the Renton waterfront plant near today's Fry's Electronics. Youre right, none of us on the forums actually saw an airplane hit the Pentagon; we saw it before, and immedietly after. But guess what? The explosion looks just like the second tower's explosion, and the first, BOTH of which are on tape - and hundreds of American Citizens on freeways in the DC metropolitan area saw that plane go towards the Pentagon. It wasnt a missile - watch what those do sometime when they hit. Your conspiracy theory is so full of holes it is not worth serious consideration.
Russ Wittenburg, a certified Air Force pilot who flew two of the planes allegedly used on 9/11, told WingTV that Flight 77 could not possibly have flown at the speeds which the government has claimed Danielle O'Brien, an Air Traffic Controller at Dulles International Airport, told ABC News that everybody in the control room thought that Flight 77 was a military plane why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77? Cnn's Jamie McIntyre was reporting live from the Pentagon, and describes exactly how much of the plane is left... If flight 77 vaporized upon impact, it would be the first time in aviation history... For example. August 15th, 2005. Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full speed. 121 passengers, all dead. Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections. Engines. Cockpit. Black boxes. Bodies. Catch my drift? Fifth, why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole, without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage where the wings, or the vertical stabilizer, or the engines, would have slammed into the building? Remember how big the engines were? If six tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at 530 MPH, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints... And yet, the only damage to the Pentagon is this single hole, with no damage from where the engines would have hit Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact? Why are the cable spools in front of the hole completely untouched? And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole, approximately six feet in diameter... ...Found on the other side of the C Ring, three rings from the impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon, smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and leave another 16 foot hole? Seventh, surveillance cameras from a gas station, the Sheraton Hotel, and the Virginia Department of Transportation captured the entire thing. However, the FBI was there within minutes to confiscate the tapes, including a warning for the employees not to discuss what they had seen. All attempts to have these videos released have been denied. If the government wishes to prove once and for all that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, all they would have to do is release one of these tapes. feel free to comment on my arguements as im sure you have all the answers needed to convince me that it was a plane after all, if you dont then lets agree to disagree
read the thread brett i dont know what happened nobody here does, but in my opinion it wasnt a passenger plane that hit the pentagon.
Citations? Have you not seen any of the photographs of the links? Theres a ton of various pieces of debris all over the place. People were shocked by it. You expect a scrawny piece of aluminum to survive in any recognizeable chunk after running into a concrete/steel reinforced structure? See any plane debris left over from the 9/11 attacks? About the equivalent amounts of force and interaction were involved. It didnt run into it "full speed," it impacted at an angle. You expect to see cockpit debris after hitting what you mention yourself to be a heavily reinforced building? If you had paid ANY attention to ANY of the photos, you would have noted that there are tons of citations of aircraft part debris, including support struts, engine pieces, and fusalage skin. Again, there are images that indicate that one of the engines was broken off before impact, and there are damage marks where the aircraft's engines would hit. Uh, lets see, because they were six inch reinforced glass? You call this completely untouched? Its called blast force. The energy was enough to breech the first wall and kept going. And as you can see, it was just brick. The Pentagon doesnt have 16' walls, it had ~ 1 - 2' thick walls at best - the Pentagon's outer layer isnt a solid freaking wall for christ's sake Somewhat interesting - however, the US government still has material and footage from WWII classified. This is not unusual stuff. I took that liberty, and have given a realistic answer to basically every point youve given. Still not satisifed?
How about, in the interests of having a proper discussion, rather than just repeating yourself like a stuck record, counter any of the points made against you? You're entitled to an opinion, but if you're going to say it so forcefully in a forum named 'Serious discussion', expect to be asked to back it up with something at least loosely based on reason and logic.
Well lets assume for a second that you are correct and a passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon. Something did, and the only other alternative is a missile. Was this fired by terrorist or by the US government? The size of the projectile was too large for something like an RPG so then we are in the realms of a cruise missile, which only the US government would have the cabability of launching. I again ask why would they choose to do this ? If they did then they had 51 minutes to come up with this plan, to take down the plane with no witnesses, launch a missile towards the pentagon and then strategically place Boeing 757 parts at the crash/attack site. The most likely explanation is that this was the third hijacked plane.
