i've noticed that the conspiriologists tend to show all these other plane crash photos, the ones where they hit dirt/earth (which i imagine is much less dense/softer than the penatgon's concrete, bricks, mortar, etc.), and say, "see, this is debris! where is it on the pentagon? huh?". i imagine the diference would be like dropping an egg on carpet and dropping an egg on stone. the one on the stone is going to be shattered into much smaller pieces than the one on the carpet. that's why you would see larger, more recognizable chunks of plane in a field than in/around the pentagon.
now im a stuck record , if i say i dont know what happened and the next post is a question about what happened then isnt it obvious to remind the person of my position. as for my "forcefull" opinion i did back it up by saying that from what i have read and seen of this issue i dont believe a passenger plane hit the pentagon.
Regarding the lack of debris: Flight where the pilot attempted to avoid damage: Flight where pilot flew into the ground deliberately: You may notice a difference in the ammount of debris.
O RLY? You DO realize that many military aircraft are based on civilian aircraft, correct? Do you know how easy aluminum decintegates and melts? Apparnetly not. There IS debris left. Not only that, but a plane that crashes into a CONCRETE RE-ENFORCED MILITARY BUILDING would survive intact? Nope. IT DIDN'T VAPORIZE. There's plenty of debris. That' because it crashed into a hill. Not a concrete re-enforced military building. When a plane crashes, there will ALWAYs be debris. Which was found everywhere around the pentagon. There was a fire. A fire with Jet fuel. A jet fuel that burns at a temperature enough that it will melt aluminum. A cockpit is basicly metal, plastic, a bit of glass. Bodies were found. The plane crashed between the first and second floor. The building isn't some wood ****. It's concrete. Steel. 6" windows. It's DESIGNED not to take any of that sh.it There was wreckage on the outside. The wings buckled inwards. The vertical stabilizer shredded. It's not your normal building. Try flying a plane into solid concrete. That's basicly it. Engines are not that strong. Assuming each engine is six tons, almost all the weight is from the turbines and engine casings. The turbines are not particularly re-enforced. It WILL shred upon impact, and shatter and scatter. The engine casings are not cast as a single piece. It is made of many pieces of welded titanium, steel, composites, and aluminum. An engine burns fuel. Burning fuel creates heat. Heat makes it easier for parts to fall apart, break. Since it's 6 tons moving at 530 mph, there is no dubt that the engines hit, and exploded into a shower of parts. the pentagon is a building made to withstand this. Engines aren't too strong. Upon impact, they WILL destroy themselves. 6" blast windows. You could set a pipe bomb next to it, and it would not shatter. Remember, this is the PENTAGON you're talking about. They were touched. Look above. Because inside the pentagon, there's another hole, 6~ feet in diameter. You do realize that when a plane hits a building, parts go everywhere. A plane travelling at 550 MPH will definatly do that. Evidence in the trials. In due time, the tapes WILL be released. The tapes were withheld with good reason. We do not know what that reason is. Please, instead of always accusing the government of hiding things simply because something isn't exactly how it should be, or the government isn't release the entire truth (something they might not have), Think for yourself. Don't believe ******** propaganda. 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 [/QUOTE]
Honestly have the conspiratists not read any of the material posted on this thread? It seems all the conspiratists do is take what is written on looschange and other conspiracy websites and post it here, without thinking for themselves. There was debris found at the site from flight 77, including: Aluminum panel Seats Wheels from the landing gear Engines structure components - painted the color that the boeing plant uses to prime them The jet was only about 13 feet in diameter, this fits the hole it made perfectly. This article, http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html, explains how a 6 ft. diameter hole was made in the 3rd ring of the building. I don't think that people on here are trying to say that the video proves it is not a missile because it doesn't. The white image in the video could be a missile, a drone, or 757. But the evidence from the wreckage proves that it is a 757. Maybe the government will release the videos from the hotel and gas station, and maybe those will have a better shot of the aircraft. Here's a video of an F4 flying into a solid concrete wall designed to withstand such an impact. The F4, traveling at about 500 mph, was pretty much vaporized into dust. http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/1266/Jet_Vs_Concrete_wall.html This video helps explain why there aren't any large sections of the plane left to identify. Again here are some references posted earlier: A scientific graphical visualization of the crash: http://www.itap.purdue.edu/enablingthefuture/video/ And here is some good rational reading: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Not to repeat myself, or anything... Left engine impact: red circle. Right engine impact: Green circle. Two very distinct imprints. Also, note the big, black tree over on the right side of the picture. Cruise missiles rely on force effects: They destroy with a shockwave. Shockwaves don't turn trees black. Searing heat does. That tree was burned to death.
Iv found a video of the missile attack on the pentagon and managed to print screen 1 frame before the attack and one frame just as the supposed plane comes into view. picture one here shows the area from where the attack comes from but all is well before the attack: Now picture 2 shows just as the supposed plane enters from the left. Now im no expert but i dont remember the front of planes looking anything this small or narrow. If anything it looks like a missle. See for yourselves: hmm, what do you reckon?
Dont forget that most of the engine is a high bypass design - the actuall compressor and "heavy" components are quite small. The holes are just the right size. Not to mention that heavy mass isnt solid like an automobile engine block; its a ton of very high precision, thin components screwed together, which would be ripped apart/shredded/whatever by the impact, rather than carry though as a recognisable whole. Also, in regards to the photos, my guess would be debris; the 757 hit an awful lot of stuff before it hit the pentagon, as demonstrated by bent poles, etc. It could be a flight surface, it could be a piece of aluminum. However, we'll probably never know just what part it was.
why do you keep posting an inconclusive picture and assume it proves your theory, this was after the building collapsed. also the answers to the points i made are also peoples opinion, all this it will definately do this or that is absurd or are you all experts in this field now. since we watched in horror as two planes destroyed the twin towers why would it then be a matter of national security to with hold even a single frame showing the plane conclusivley never mind all the video evidence that was taken of the event (apart from five frames).
Will is referring to your posts #54, #56 and #58 which are copies of the same post. Now we have challenged your arguments, but you still have not challenged ours, just re-iterated your position, which we know by now. Nor have you explained what happened to the missing plane and its missing passengers (there are a large number of grieving relatives who'd like to know), nor have you given an alternative explanation of events. What did hit the Pentagon then, and how? You keep accusing us from acting like "experts", but in case of Roto's dad and Techno-Dann, that is exactly what you are dealing with: plane engineers. Moreover, the same accusation could be leveled at you: what makes you the expert? You keep losing the forrest for the trees. Look, if this was a U.S. conspiracy, a fake, then it would have looked more real than real. There would be no ambiguous or unclear security footage. There would be clear, high-resolution close-up tapes of what is obviously a plane flying into the walls of what is obviously the Pentagon --it wouldn't be hard to fake that: just have a "tourist" planted at just the right spot with a camcorder; have Pentagon security cameras pointing in just the right direction at just the righ moment, all by "coincidence". There would be big obvious plane chunks everywhere, practically embossed with Osama's (or Saddam's) autographs. There would be no doubt in your mind whatsoever, because a good faker leaves nothing to doubt. You are wondering why the goverment refuses to release CCTV footage. Perhaps it is because it does not really want the world to see just how easy it was to attack the Pentagon. We all assumed that it would be the most heavily protected building in the world --now it turns out that any gung-ho terrorist could just fly a plane into it. Rather embarrassing, really. You are entitled to your position, but be prepared to be challenged on it, to need to defend it with reasoned argument and to challenge other people's arguments in the same manner. Broken record techniques are not appropriate here and do nothing for your credibility as a discussion partner.
really ! maybe by saying i dont know what happened only that i didnt think it was a 757 would have given you a clue that i am not here to solve this mystery. i dont "keep" claiming to be an expert only someone with an opinion, which despite reapeating isnt really getting through. in your opinion this would be the case and you are no expert then why release 5 frames, your explanation for this doesnt hold up as we see something hit the pentagon. however what it was we dont see. by using cheap put downs damages your credibility as a discussion partner.
Really? Your oppinion, that "it wasnt a passenger plane that hit the pentagon" is perfectly clear. We're just not blindly believing it. Nexxo is a practicing Psychologist (IIRC). He's forgotten more about human behavior than you and I put together know. When it comes to why people believe what they believe, he is an expert. Maybe because those 5 frames are all they have that's of interest? CCTVs aren't high-speed cameras, and those five frames could well be all that was caught by that camera of the aircraft. I haven't seen the footage myself, so I don't know, but witnesses describe the plane as being at full throttle, running somewhere in the territory of 500 MPH. I rather doubt that a security camera designed to catch vandals and graffiti artists would give a Hollywood-quality impact scene. (And BTW, I'm just a college student. My dad is an engineer who has worked for the last 20 years at Boeing. I'm no expert, but I'm smart enough to check everything I post with him first.)
Yes, really. Given that you have a strong opinion on what did not happen, we thought that perhaps you had an opinion on what did happen. You could concentrate less on the "cheapness" of my comment and more on the logic: what happened to the missing passengers? But of course, you don't. I'll come back to that in a second. We know where you stand. We just disagree. I am, as Techno-Dann points out, a Clinical Psychologist. How people think, reason and believe (and incidentally, try to deceive) is within my remit of expertise (again, I'll come back to that in a second). A con man leaves nothing to doubt, because doubt is the first step to being unmasked. In order to deceive the victim, they must paint a picture which is absolutely consistent with the victim's beliefs. It is a bit like the moon landings: if they were faked, they would have looked exactly how we expected them to look. No-one would point their finger at anything and go: "Hey, that looks a bit dodgy..." because it would look seamless, perfect, 100% congruent with our beliefs about how it should look. See above. The fact that these are five crappy frames, paradoxically, makes it more likely that they are genuine. OK, here is the psychology bit. So far you have accused me of swearing and making cheap comments and putdowns, and Roto of lying. You appear more interested in criticising how people contribute to this discussion, rather than what they have to say. I think that's the point though: as long as you can side-track into the words people use, the comments they make or their presumed lack of truthfulness, you can avoid responding to the logical and factual challenges to your argument. This impression is reinforced by the fact that you have further evaded challenges of your position by the "broken record technique" and subsequently denied it (and then evaded the issue further when proof of this was presented with a flippant "really!"). No doubt you will respond to this with another flippant retort. I do not think there is anything further to be had from this discussion. We know were you stand, you know where we stand. When you feel capable of responding to our challenge of your position rationally, we can resume. Until then, let's just agree to disagree, OK?
Just a quick 2 cents to finboz; Firstly, stop being a hypocritical "above-thou" twit...other people attempt to convey their knowledge to you, and you insult them, and pretend that their "getting worked up" -ness is because "you're right, and they're wrong". Reading through the posts, I notice something...the others (persons disagreeing with you) rarely quote, or link directly to sites, or resources to support their points, rather, they might quote or reference for your own personal benefit (though I doubt you even bothered to read once you realized it wasn't of your viewpoint). This shows that they've taken the time to read both sides of the issue, and are imparting their understanding (both professional, and subjective) onto you. YOU on the other hand have been linking to conspircacy theories over and over, and replying with general "facts" that they have no way to respond to. Why can't they respond to you? It's not that you're right, it's that they either a) Don't know well enough to make a point (though you would make an uneducated point if you were in their shoes) or b) It's already been disproved, you're just too arrogant to understand it. I think you calling them "brainwashed" (or implying) is also hypocritical...you're not an expert, you've watched/looked at conspiracy theory sites. While I have nothing against these sites, take a close look at them. They're laid out in a way that makes your pea-sized brain follow a path that leads up to the conclusion "Conspiracy!". You're not opening your mind to understand that it's just a colourful, well-presented viewpoint, not neccessarily taken as truth. This thread is here for discussion, discussion: dis·cus·sion Audio pronunciation of "discussion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skshn) n. 1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation. Consideration, as in, taking in all points of an argument, and interpretting them, followed by posting an opinion from those interpretations. It doesn't mean blind faith in something, without even considering others' opinions. Check.
Well to be honest, does it really matter if a plane flew into the pentagon or a missile? Something did hit the pentagon and either one would be America's fault would they not?
