Conspiracy theory may be laid to rest today

[Dr Z]

I'll drag this back to the top again just for the sake of passing on the link a friend sent . Anybody know of any sources that debunk the points made in the film?

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

My thoughts are that it would take one hell of an effort to cover this up or make it into a conspiracy. I just don't buy all the family members of crew and passengers being silenced just for statrers.

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

[SkiDork]

I'll drag this back to the top again just for the sake of passing on the link a friend sent . Anybody know of any sources that debunk the points made in the film?

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

My thoughts are that it would take one hell of an effort to cover this up or make it into a conspiracy. I just don't buy all the family members of crew and passengers being silenced just for statrers.

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

What about the lack of wing marks?

[BigKahuna13]

I'll drag this back to the top again just for the sake of passing on the link a friend sent . Anybody know of any sources that debunk the points made in the film?

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

My thoughts are that it would take one hell of an effort to cover this up or make it into a conspiracy. I just don't buy all the family members of crew and passengers being silenced just for statrers.

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

What about the lack of wing marks?

Just a SWAG....but given that the wing's mass is spread across the entire span - as opposed to fuselage where the mass would be concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - there simply wasn't enough mass at any point along the span to generate enough kinetic energy to penetrate the structure. Wing probably got ripped to pieces.

[SkiDork]

I'll drag this back to the top again just for the sake of passing on the link a friend sent . Anybody know of any sources that debunk the points made in the film?

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

My thoughts are that it would take one hell of an effort to cover this up or make it into a conspiracy. I just don't buy all the family members of crew and passengers being silenced just for statrers.

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

What about the lack of wing marks?

Just a SWAG....but given that the wing's mass is spread across the entire span - as opposed to fuselage where the mass would be concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - there simply wasn't enough mass at any point along the span to generate enough kinetic energy to penetrate the structure. Wing probably got ripped to pieces.

But you could see the marks on 1 WTC

[XtremeJibber2001]

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

What about the lack of wing marks?

Just a SWAG....but given that the wing's mass is spread across the entire span - as opposed to fuselage where the mass would be concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - there simply wasn't enough mass at any point along the span to generate enough kinetic energy to penetrate the structure. Wing probably got ripped to pieces.

But you could see the marks on 1 WTC

My guess is...like BK said....it depends on the material used to build the structure. I think the Pentagon was orginally built to withstand a hit from something, but it was undergoing construction to beef up the walls on 9/11. I know this particular side didn't have the upgrade, but I think the pentagon had a stonger fascade then the WTC 1.

[BigKahuna13]

The film is full of the standard tools of bs conspiracy theories. A couple off the top of my head:

- they make alot of noise about the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon given the a/c was a nearly fully fueled 757, with the obvious implication that a 757 should've caused much more damage. Yet they offer no information whatsoever as to what type of damage a 757 should have caused to a building constructed like the Pentagon.


- Eyewitnesses are quoted but we have no idea if they quoted out of context or if they're observations are valid given their individual circumstances at the time of the incident or if they're qualified to make the obsevations that they did (ex: does the guy who said it looked like a commuter know the difference between the two and was he in a position to make a valid observation?)

- They quoted the terrorists instructors as saying they couldn't fly the plane. What does that mean? The skills involved in pointing an airplane in a particular direction are a small subset of what it takes to fly an airplane (takeoff, navigation, communicate, approach, land etc). We have no idea what the FI's actually meant by "he couldn't fly".

- finally see Kahuna's Law of Conspiracies above. The number of people and amount of evidence that would have been needed to fake this is
makes the idea of a conspiracy laughable.

Could go on if you like........

I agree, Just thought I would throw it out there.

What about the lack of wing marks?

Just a SWAG....but given that the wing's mass is spread across the entire span - as opposed to fuselage where the mass would be concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - there simply wasn't enough mass at any point along the span to generate enough kinetic energy to penetrate the structure. Wing probably got ripped to pieces.

But you could see the marks on 1 WTC

The buildings are constructed differently, out of different materials. I'd hazard a guess that the stone exterior of the Pentagon is much sturdier than the relatively thin metal exterior of the WTC was.

You can't draw conclusions from the WTC that would be applicable to the Pentagon.

Another thought occured to me. In the Pentagon case, the initial impact may simply have caused the wing attachments fail and the wings then folded back against the fuselage.

[SkiDork]

OK

[2knees]

strangely enough, the 2 Six ton titanium engines hitting the building at 500 mph left absolutely no marks either. I guess they disintegrated upon impact.

[BigKahuna13]

strangely enough, the 2 Six ton titanium engines hitting the building at 500 mph left absolutely no marks either. I guess they disintegrated upon impact.

Actually no. The clearance between the engines and the fuselage is on the order of 10 feet. It's not clear to me that they would have made marks/holes/whatever distinct from those made by the fuselage. Maybe they would have, maybe not. But assuming they would have is silly.

And if the wings did fold the engines would have probably been that much closer to the fuselage anyway.

Granted this is speculation built on assumptions and more speculation and is probably all sh*t too. But it's at least slightly more informed sh*t...

[2knees]

i dont find any of this silly. You are 100% certain of the cause of these events. I am not, though i do not pretend to have the answers. Unfortunately, i have only questions. And if that makes me a wingnut in your book, so be it.

[SkiDork]

I would just like to know why the other tapes haven't ever been released...

WHY?

[BigKahuna13]

i dont find any of this silly. You are 100% certain of the cause of these events. I am not, though i do not pretend to have the answers. Unfortunately, i have only questions. And if that makes me a wingnut in your book, so be it.

No, you can't ever be 100% certain of anything. But given the complete lack of credible evidence put forth in any other theory, the hijacked-757 theory remains by far the most convincing.

[Bubba]

i dont find any of this silly. You are 100% certain of the cause of these events. I am not, though i do not pretend to have the answers. Unfortunately, i have only questions. And if that makes me a wingnut in your book, so be it.

No, you can't ever be 100% certain of anything. But given the complete lack of credible evidence put forth in any other theory, the hijacked-757 theory remains by far the most convincing.

If it wasn't the hijacked 757, where did that plane go?

[Dr. NO]

Kahuna, you have a lot of good info there. The pentagone is steel internal frames and multiple buildings withing the outer building. I would be very difficult to fully penetrate the entire building, especially with a light framed, plastic nose, aircraft. The stories on WTC is that the design of the building was it's demise.

Also, engines were on the outside of the Pentagon At the angle of approach, the plane hit power lines and fensing prior to the building, and since it hit the ground as it went in, the engines would have been torn off the aircraft on impact. I believe they are actuallyl designed to do so for crash landings.

But, yes, it is a conspiracy. We shot ourselves with a missile and planned the entire attack just to start our war on terror.

[2knees]

But, yes, it is a conspiracy. We shot ourselves with a missile and planned the entire attack just to start our war on terror.

the sad irony in your sarcastic statement lies in project northwoods and the sept 2000 article released by the PNAC. "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" It's incomprehnsible to consider that this could be true, and i sincerely hope it is not. But there actually is a little precedent here, unfortunately.