What did hit the Pentagon? - Page 8

**Maggy** · 07-09-2004, 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigaSefi

well the people demand the truth

Some people can't tell what the truth is even if it bites them in the a*se.

**Damien** · 07-09-2004, 09:20

Why on earth would the US goverment fire a missile into its own building?

Why on earth would they fly a plane into their own building?

**Mick** · 07-09-2004, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Why on earth would the US goverment fire a missile into its own building?

Why on earth would they fly a plane into their own building?

The conspiracy theory is that they would probably do so for a valid excuse for war with Iraq etc.

Pierre · 07-09-2004, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Why on earth would the US goverment fire a missile into its own building?

Why on earth would they fly a plane into their own building?

No I don't believe that either.

Something hit the Pentagon, I just don't believe the evidence points to a Passenger jet.

danielf · 07-09-2004, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

I disagree. It's healthy to question what you're told by the authorities and media and your ability to do this without fear is a basic human right which in a lot of places people are denied.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14736.html

"Repression of Dissent..."
"...internet users are regularly arrested and imprisoned for exercising their basic right to freedom of expression..."

Sure, it is healthy to question what you're told by the authorities, and I don't want to deny anyone this right, but imo this conspiracy theory is a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, which, as Chris points out, is not going to help the family and friends of the victims (in particular those on flight 77) to get on with their lives.

**Damien** · 07-09-2004, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

No I don't believe that either.

Something hit the Pentagon, I just don't believe the evidence points to a Passenger jet.

What evidance? SOme pictures and a bunch of nuts who have no understanding of a plane crash but because theres no video footage of the 3rd and 4th planes think they can make some story of it

The only reason they are doing this is bbecause theys no video. It happened the same time as the twin towers, the people on plane 77 died. The goverments around the world have all given evidance of the hijackers being together (especcially German and British)

As for the theory that the american goverment attacked the pentagon/towers to justify a iraqi war that has fatal flaws. I may not like Bush but saying that he killed around 3000 people to justify a war is too far

Think about it, If they where using it as an excuse to attack iraqi dont you think they would have made the hijackers from iraq instead of saudi ariba? The natoinality of the hijackers was hugely embrassing ffor Bush and making them all from iraq would have been much better to justify the war

Pierre · 07-09-2004, 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

What evidance? SOme pictures and a bunch of nuts who have no understanding of a plane crash but because theres no video footage of the 3rd and 4th planes think they can make some story of it

There are several anomalies that are not fully explained.

The hole through the structure.
The lack of scorching or impact marks on the lawn
The undamaged cable reels in path of the alledged flight path.

Quote:

The only reason they are doing this is bbecause theys no video. It happened the same time as the twin towers, the people on plane 77 died. The goverments around the world have all given evidance of the hijackers being together (especcially German and British)

It did happen on Sept 11 yes.

Quote:

As for the theory that the american goverment attacked the pentagon/towers to justify a iraqi war that has fatal flaws. I may not like Bush but saying that he killed around 3000 people to justify a war is too far

As I've said before I don't subscribe to that theory

Quote:

Think about it, If they where using it as an excuse to attack iraqi dont you think they would have made the hijackers from iraq instead of saudi ariba? The natoinality of the hijackers was hugely embrassing ffor Bush and making them all from iraq would have been much better to justify the war

As I've said before I don't subscribe to that theory

zovat · 07-09-2004, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Here you go...........click on animation/pentagon conspiracy

Isn't that the same animation as in post #1 ?

etccarmageddon · 07-09-2004, 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Here you go...........click on animation/pentagon conspiracy

an excellent mini documentary.

Ramrod · 07-09-2004, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by zovat

Isn't that the same animation as in post #1 ?

deleting post now

edit...the link in #1 doesn't work for me......

danielf · 07-09-2004, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

deleting post now

edit...the link in #1 doesn't work for me......

It doesn't work for me either. The site linked to in post 1 is having some bandwith trouble so your alternative serves a purpose

http://www.freedomunderground.org/vi...l=9&aid=8960#9

zovat · 07-09-2004, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

deleting post now

edit...the link in #1 doesn't work for me......

weird - works fine for me....

As to the whole theory...

I saw this not long after 9/11 on a french website, and although interesting, it lacked any substance.
There was no alternate theory offered, nor any motivation for the US Govt blowing up one of their own buildings...

The hole shown is approximately the right size for an engine from a 757.

If, as stated, the plane bounced, then went in, it may well have missed the cable reels, and the momentum would have crried the burning fuel inwards rather than outwards.

The lack of a "bounce mark" on the lawn - hard to say - could have not "bounced" but merely been pulled up sharply as the pilot realised he was too low (pure guesswork, but so is the theory being put forward). Could have bounced where a fire truck parked, after all - they got there before the press did..

also for equality - see http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html

SMHarman · 07-09-2004, 14:11

It could even have managed a direct hit at the front wall of the building, no bounces at all.

krbenson · 08-09-2004, 09:43

after just looking at most posts, i dont think many people have thought of the fireball after impact!

there is no way a missile of any kind would create that size of fireball, and as for a small military jet - i doubt that too!

with the amount of fuel involved on a jet liner, most of it will vapourise on impact, the rest will create an explosion going forwards!

look at the inner walls damage - how some are leaning inwards - this imo could only be caused by an explosion of some 4000 gallons of fuel!

Pierre · 08-09-2004, 09:52

I think all in all, us Conspirancy believers have been beaten.

Good thread though. I enjoyed it.