Fingernail on 17/3/2006 at 21:29
I know what you are and that's an idiot!
Defcon on 17/3/2006 at 21:49
Quote Posted by paloalto
Summary of inconsistancies with Pentagon attack.
(
http://0911.site.voila.fr/BionicAntboy.htm)
A good summation od interesting questions.
Atheory that it was a private plane with a bomb on board.
Ermm.
He bases this theory of eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable), some people claiming to see a C-130 following the aircraft, the government confiscating camera evidence, and that website links into an endless maelstrom of 9/11 conspiracy websites...
Ahem.
Anyway, he also claims that the energy required to disintergrate a jumbo jet would leave no "intact" human remains behind. My science knowledge may be seriously lacking, but aren't bones supposed to be pretty tough things?
He then links to a "Penta-Lawn" website. Which claims that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon since there's no marks on the lawn and eyewitnesses report seeing it hit the lawn (which the security footage doesn't show) and that because it entered low to the Pentagon it had to skid along the ground.
The website then pulls out some red herrings by showing pictures of where airplanes collided with the ground and not a heavily reinforced concrete building.
Oh, and then he claims something that the government covered it up by dumping gravel on the lawn. You know, so heavy vehicles can move around easier...err...I mean so that this evidence is hidden.
The website doesn't answer the most important question, however. Where did Flight 77 go after take-off if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?
dh124289 on 17/3/2006 at 23:15
Just finished watching "loose change 2nd edition"
Not bad for a home made docu. Same old, same old with the towers stuff. However IMO the Pentagon argument is very compelling...
..especially the part about how they didn't recover the titanium+steel engines due to the intense heat, but they managed to recover and identify >80% of the passengers. Aye right then!
Also he speaks about a photo released by a FEMA agent which show a mangled circular item in amongst the rubble. What the n00b agent didn't realise was that the component pictured didn't come from a passenger jet.. I think it has been identified as part of a military jet engine.
His computer simulations of the incoming airliner were pretty cool too.
Paz on 17/3/2006 at 23:20
Quote Posted by Defcon
Where did Flight 77 go after take-off if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?
Bermuda Triangle, obv.
It's like some of you don't even WANT to believe!
Agent Monkeysee on 17/3/2006 at 23:24
Quote Posted by Fingernail
I know what
you are and that's an idiot!
no u :mad:
:(
SD on 17/3/2006 at 23:29
Quote Posted by dh124289
..especially the part about how they didn't recover the titanium+steel engines due to the intense heat, but they managed to recover and identify >80% of the passengers. Aye right then!
Indeed. For me this is the absolute most fascinating part of the whole thing. Where the hell did all that plane go? Titanium doesn't just vanish into thin air like that. And why the hoy did the pieces of what looked like engine, not actually resemble anything you would find on a jumbo jet?
steo on 17/3/2006 at 23:51
If the plane did hit the pentagon the only explination I can think of for the whereabouts of the engines is that they were torn to shreds by the speed and force of impact. I still don't know quite how the weaker fuselage managed to punch through three sections of the recently reinforced side of the pentagon while two bigger planes were completely absorbed by the two towers.
The arguements for controlled demolition seem more and more realistic the more footage I see.
Defcon on 18/3/2006 at 00:36
Quote Posted by steo
If the plane did hit the pentagon the only explination I can think of for the whereabouts of the engines is that they were torn to shreds by the speed and force of impact. I still don't know quite how the weaker fuselage managed to punch through three sections of the recently reinforced side of the pentagon while two bigger planes were completely absorbed by the two towers.
The arguements for controlled demolition seem more and more realistic the more footage I see.
How?
How was controlled demolition performed when
something smashed into and penetrated the side of a building?
I would be worried about, you know, the impact messing up the demolitions set-up.
Not to mention how was it performed right in front of all the workers reinforcing the Pentagon? How were the materials slipped inside?
steo on 18/3/2006 at 01:16
The controlled demolition of the two towers I mean. Certainly it is much less likely that the pentagon was rigged with explosives. Though it was probably a 757 that hit the pentagon I am puzzled as to how it managed to penetrate 3 sections of the building when the planes that hit the two towers did not come out the other side and the lack of damage from the 6 ton engines.
paloalto on 18/3/2006 at 07:48
Quote Posted by Defcon
Ermm.
He bases this theory of eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable), some people claiming to see a C-130 following the aircraft, the government confiscating camera evidence, and that website links into an endless maelstrom of 9/11 conspiracy websites...
Ahem.
Anyway, he also claims that the energy required to disintergrate a jumbo jet would leave no "intact" human remains behind. My science knowledge may be seriously lacking, but aren't bones supposed to be pretty tough things?
He then links to a "Penta-Lawn" website. Which claims that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon since there's no marks on the lawn and eyewitnesses report seeing it hit the lawn (which the security footage doesn't show) and that because it entered low to the Pentagon it had to skid along the ground.
The website then pulls out some red herrings by showing pictures of where airplanes collided with the ground and not a heavily reinforced concrete building.
Oh, and then he claims something that the government covered it up by dumping gravel on the lawn. You know, so heavy vehicles can move around easier...err...I mean so that this evidence is hidden.
The website doesn't answer the most important question, however. Where did Flight 77 go after take-off if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?
He is saying that as low as the Pentagon is, in order to make the hole,(a rather small hole at that),The 757 would have had to come in at an angle
which because of the total height of the jet and the angle it came in on would have dragged the left engine into the ground,gouging a hole in the lawn,which there are no damages to be seen in the lawn.And given the width of the plane and the engines supposedly disintegrating,where are the damaged areas of the Pentagon wall where the engines hit?You can't have it both ways.If there was enough force to disintegrate titanium engines,that would have damaged the walls,reinforced or not.And yet some of the windows are even still intact.
