World Trade Centre & Pentagon Attacked

Bhp9999 · Sep 19, 2004

Nobody saw the camera footage that showed a missle flying into the pentagon?

@M5Power: What the **** man, you sound like a *****.

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Oh dear God.

I apologise to everyone for what may follow in this thread. I just thought that, seeing as we mentioned the video of the F4-E already, it'd make a nice addition. I didn't expect anyone to actually carry on with the conspiracy theory...

Bhp9999 - Show the video, if you can. If you can't back up this allegation, then don't make it. And your second statement contains two profanities and a personal attack. Three strikes...

ledhed · Sep 19, 2004

The nuts come out of the wood work. From the conspiracy channel near you . It takes a special non thinking organism to believe in this garbage. But alas the plane may have landed on their head but the secret society of the black helicopters must have fired a missle and the plane was a holograph because the acid I have been doing says so.

Bhp9999 · Sep 19, 2004

Famine
Bhp9999 - Show the video, if you can. If you can't back up this allegation, then don't make it.

It was a video from a CCTV of the pentagon parking lot, showing a very small white object flying into the building. I can't show the video since i don't have it. But do you have a video showing a 767 going into the building?

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Bhp9999 · Sep 19, 2004

Well?

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Well what?

A link to a page containing it has already BEEN posted. I believe it is, in fact, exactly the same video of which you speak, only the object on the video is far too large to be even the largest US cruise missile. In fact, one might say, it's large enough to be - get this - a Boeing 757-200.

The search button is your friend.

There is no video showing a missile impacting the Pentagon. Since it didn't happen. If you think it did then please provide all of the evidence you have to lead you to this conclusion, along with postulations on what actually happened to the "missing" 757-200 if it didn't crash into the Pentagon, as shown.

2ez2KiLL · Sep 19, 2004

I think im the only person here that blames bush for 9/11.

Bhp9999 · Sep 19, 2004

Famine
Well what?

A link to a page containing it has already BEEN posted. I believe it is, in fact, exactly the same video of which you speak

I doubt it?

You tell me where the "missing 767" is. Since obviously it's not, and has never been, in the pentagon. We think differently about it, and we're got going to change eachothers minds, so just leave it at this.

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Please tell me what evidence you have for believing that the "missing" 757-200 (and missing 86 people on board) is not in the Pentagon.

I've reviewed every piece of evidence every kook conspiracy theory site has come up with so far, and it's all a bust.

The video of the 757-200 hitting the Pentagon is taken by a security car park CCTV camera. The plane is partially obscured by a security booth at one point - the tail tip is visible - and given the angle the object subtends and the distance from the booth, the object has to be at least 40 feet high. Nice missile. The CCTV camera appears to be facing parallel to the Pentagon and the plane flies right-to-left into it.

This is followed by an explosion composed of jet fuel, gas and vapourised aluminium, not high explosive (colours give this away nicely).

Damage & Missile/Plane comparisons - posted on this site.
Said video - posted on this site. Advisory - this video shows the deaths of 86 people.

Your evidence?

The359 · Sep 19, 2004

Bhp9999
I doubt it?

You tell me where the "missing 767" is. Since obviously it's not, and has never been, in the pentagon. We think differently about it, and we're got going to change eachothers minds, so just leave it at this.

You show me where the two planes that hit the World Trade Center are, and I'll give you a prize.

SnakeEyes 325is · Sep 19, 2004

haven't been here in a loooooooooong time, just came to stop some e-mail notifications, and dang, look what's been dug up. yet I still hold the nuber two post in total thread posts. go figure.

Bhp9999 · Sep 19, 2004

Famine
Please tell me what evidence you have for believing that the "missing" 757-200 (and missing 86 people on board) is not in the Pentagon.

I've reviewed every piece of evidence every kook conspiracy theory site has come up with so far, and it's all a bust.

The video of the 757-200 hitting the Pentagon is taken by a security car park CCTV camera. The plane is partially obscured by a security booth at one point - the tail tip is visible - and given the angle the object subtends and the distance from the booth, the object has to be at least 40 feet high. Nice missile. The CCTV camera appears to be facing parallel to the Pentagon and the plane flies right-to-left into it.

This is followed by an explosion composed of jet fuel, gas and vapourised aluminium, not high explosive (colours give this away nicely).

Damage & Missile/Plane comparisons - posted on this site.
Said video - posted on this site. Advisory - this video shows the deaths of 86 people.

Your evidence?

Planes leave things behind when they crash. Technicly, because there's no type of wreckage at all, neither of us have the solid evidence. No matter what eyewitnesses saw or did not see. I belive the ones that claim they saw a missle. And honestly if you were there and you claimed to have saw a plane, i wouldn't have belived you anyway.

You think this and i'll think that. Leave it alone now, i can't be bothered to read about it anymore this decade.

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Didn't catch what The359 said, did you?

The reason this thread came back was for the posting of this video:

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

It is of a plane, crashing. Tell me what this plane left behind. For reference, it's an unmanned F4-E Phantom hitting a reinforced concrete block at 650mph, with no fuel on board.

Why would you believe eyewitnesses who saw a missile, and not eyewitnesses who saw a plane? That's rather selective, don't you think?

Again, for reference, a plane (the 757-200) is ten times the size of a Tomahawk, in any dimension, and the explosion on the video is consistent with an explosion of natural gas, aviation fuel and aluminium, and wholly inconsistent with a detonation of high explosives.

I - that is to say those who believe the 757-200 crash - have the evidence. Not to mention the fact I'm a scientist. You - that is to say those who believe the missile impact - do not have any evidence, and instead prefer the conspiracy/X-Files/American Government is evil version of events.

The359 · Sep 19, 2004

Bhp9999
Planes leave things behind when they crash.

Planes leave things behind when they hit the ground at shallow angles. Planes hitting buildings are a rare occurance, so you obviously have no clue what happens when a plane hits a structure. Again, show me any wreckage left over from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center.

Technicly, because there's no type of wreckage at all, neither of us have the solid evidence.

Picture of debris have been posted in numerous places. Also explain the light poles knocked down on the highway. What missle can do that and not explode?

No matter what eyewitnesses saw or did not see. I belive the ones that claim they saw a missle.

How many of these people actually saw something instead of hearing it? And how many of these are airplane experts? Few if even none.

And honestly if you were there and you claimed to have saw a plane, i wouldn't have belived you anyway.

Then you're dense.

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Forget it, The359. He's one of the bunch whose method of scientific evaluation is to believe there's a conspiracy behind everything, form a wild opinion and then discard any evidence which contradicts that opinion.

It wouldn't matter if he'd been ON the plane and was, miraculously, the sole survivor. It'd still be the American Government that did it. With a 200 foot long missile.

Jpec07 · Sep 19, 2004

Well, I'm not going to get too involved in this arguement. One way or another 86 people died, and the world is a better place because it helped spur a global war on terrorism. Personally, I don't think it was neither - not a cruise missile nor a plane. What is it then? How on earth should I know? I wasn't there to see it or hear it with my eyes.

There was a Flash video posted earlier about it. I discredit that video outside of the quotes because a good lot of it was based on false evidence if memory serves correctly. I do know, however, that the photos and quotes weren't doctored. Where did the wreckage from the plane go? At the speeds the plane was flying the fuselage would've been meshed with the frame of the building and all body paint incinerated. What about the smell that is described in one of the quotes? Maybe the terrorists somehow got bombs on the plane. How is it that a crappy pilot sustained a commercial airliner's course 3 feet from the ground? It wasn't 3 feet from the ground for very long, I think anyone could've done it for the split second it was there. Some witnesses say it was too small to be a commercial aircraft, but what else could it have been? A smaller plane perhaps? A small nuke? Only God, the government, and the people responsible know for sure.

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Jpec07
Some witnesses say it was too small to be a commercial aircraft, but what else could it have been? A smaller plane perhaps? A small nuke? Only God, the government, and the people responsible know for sure.

The aerial photo shown earlier indicates damage consistent with an impact at high speed by an aircraft - including the depth of penetration (remember that some fragments of the 767s came out of the other side of the second WTC tower impact? Now look at the aerial photo and remember just how huge the Pentagon is - there are houses to the leeft of the picture, for comparison). The initial damage is consistent with an object the size and shape of a 757-200 fuselage.

A nuclear explosion would be circular - the blast pattern does not indicate an even spread. More debris would appear outside the building - none does, and appears to be precisely as you would expect from a high-velocity aircraft impact (directed in and down, not out and up). The nuclear fireball would cause spherical scorching, emanating from the blast centre - the aerial photograph does not show this - it's very linear.

How anyone can think it was anything BUT a 757-200, having looked at ALL of the evidence for and against myself, is beyond me.

Jpec07 · Sep 19, 2004

I missed that shot. It does prove how huge the Pentagon is and does back your point up. I have no doubt that it was a Commercial Airliner now, I just have to ask you one question to quench my curiosity: What if it were one of those bunker-buster nukes that the goverment is supposed to be testing (I can't see the video of the plane crashing into the building, so I can't see the explosion for myself)? You think that might have been able to cause similar damage to what's shown?

Famine · Sep 19, 2004

Certainly a bunker-buster - even the Paveway II - would demonstrate the penetration shown. But they are designed to stay high and plummet onto the target vertically.

The explosion shown in the video is a characteristically yellow/white explosion of jet fuel and vaporised aluminium - although aviation fuel often releases a large cloud of black smoke it's likely that wasn't seen as a result of the VAST amount of kinetic energy released in the impact allowing aluminium particles (from the atomised fuselage) to come into the mix.

The359 · Sep 20, 2004

Jpec07
What if it were one of those bunker-buster nukes that the goverment is supposed to be testing

If it were a nuke, the Pentagon wouldn't exist anymore... :rolleyes:

Jpec07 · Sep 20, 2004

The359
If it were a nuke, the Pentagon wouldn't exist anymore...

They're called pocket-nukes. They don't carry much more explosive power than a fairly large block of C4, but are extremely effective.

Duke · Sep 20, 2004

The359
If it were a nuke, the Pentagon wouldn't exist anymore...

...and there would be radioactive trace elements all over Washington, DC. Since any 10th grade science teacher with a Geiger counter would have figured that out by now, the odds of it staying secret for 3 years are nonexistant.

Just about as nonexistant as the evidence that it was anything but a commercial airliner flown into the building at a shallow angle.

The359 · Sep 20, 2004

Jpec07
They're called pocket-nukes. They don't carry much more explosive power than a fairly large block of C4, but are extremely effective.

Showing exactly what you know...

A suitcase nuke would take out a few city blocks. And a suitcase nuke is as small as they come. There is no nuclear device that can only do as much damage as a block of C4.

Pupik · Sep 20, 2004

So, when I ask "Where is the plane?", the conspiracy theorists still come up empty. After all, if you don't think a plane smashed into the Pentagon, why don't you show alternate evidence when the plane might actually be? The plane needs an "alibi" for any alternate theory to merit any proof. And if the Pentagon explosion was an sham, why do you suppose the Pentagon strike needed to be "faked" in the first place?

Don't tell me your theory until you've told the families of the victims of Flight 77 first.

Jpec07 · Sep 20, 2004

The359
Showing exactly what you know...

A suitcase nuke would take out a few city blocks. And a suitcase nuke is as small as they come. There is no nuclear device that can only do as much damage as a block of C4.

By "fairly large," I meant about a cubic meter. Granted, I know very little about explosives, or how they detonate, but the pocket nukes I read about in Popular Science I think it was contained miniscule amounts of the explosive components and were capable of penetrating even 100 feet of concrete. I'm gonna shut up now because I'm way out of my league here.