If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How so?
In the pentagon crash they managed to come at practically a horizontal angle smashing into the side of the building. A far harder thing to do IMO.
That's because you're assuming that's what they wanted to do. They could have crashed into any part of the Pentagon and it would've been job done. Probably better to do a steep dive into the top of it to be honest if it's total damage you're wanting.
Because the Penatgon is essentially a large bullseye on the ground whereas the towers are two uprights - much harder to make a direct hit on for obvious reasons.
The hull of a 757 is under 2mm thick.
Even if that happens to be true (I've no idea if it is) we have documented examples of two similar jets busting through 2 more buildings which conspiracy theory sites will have you believe were built to take direct jet strikes (the WTC towers) which suggests to me that a mass as large as a 757 moving at 500 mph can cause a lot of damage to anything it hits.
Furthermore, the bulk of a 757 doesn't end with the skin on the outside. Most of the weight will be made up with the internal stuff.
300 mph is still bloody fast and liable to do a lot of damage of course. The question is how much.
I've always taken a back seat regarding 9/11 and conspiracy theories. I believe there is far more to the story than we have been told, and I am prepared to believe the US government had been at least indirectly involved in it (for instance by being aware of the plans and allowing them to go through). I don't believe however some of the more far fetching stories involving the planes that flew into the WTC carrying missiles in their bellies, or being remote controlled.
However there is something not quite right about the Pentagon. And it doesn't take a loonie to realise that. It is easy to dismiss any website that casts doubts on 9/11 as tin-foil rubbish, but some of them do have some good points. Especially concerning how a passenger jet of the size of a 757 can do such little damage to the grass in front of the building, and such perfect hole in the building. Where are the wings, which span a lot longer than the impact area? Where is the impact site of the engines, which by its massive size and weight nature would have done massive structural damage?
How come there isn't a single piece of footage (if we exclude those 2 pointless still frame shots of the Pentagon that show nothing at all), not by CCTV, not by members of the public, that records a passenger plane flying ultra low across Washington DC for miles?
And how come there isn't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) any witnesses that say they saw the plane flying into the building, or about to anyway? Has anyone noticed the alleged flight path of the plane? It goes above busy neighbourhoods and a massive motorway network.
Something is simply not quite right there.
I'm at a bit of a loss for words to be honest. A 757 is built to lift an enormous weight, to travel at over Mach 0.5 and to stand up to some pretty dreadful weather. If you think it's a flimsy tin can, I can only assume you never travel in them...
And possibly have never seen one...[/QUOTE]
your being silly now.
it is a flimsy tin can ...when it hits a massively reinforced building ...which do you think crumples fastest?
no way would that nose cone make a perfect hole through such a solid object.
all this fuel that supposedly vapourised the entire evidence of a huge plane ...
would have exploded all over the place leaving huge burn evidence ...of which there isn't any.
if the fuel vapourised everything so quickly and efficently ...thered be no cockpit to travel so far through such a structure.
have you actualy looked at the hole?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
tbh, that supports my case. If the aluminium shell and the nose cone crumbled, then the hole in the wall is made by the internal components of the plane - its 'spine' if you will.
This is a strawman as there is both debris and evidence of burns as evidenced in the link above.
Why does there need to be a cockpit? The hole is close enough to the dimensions of a 757 to be accepted as one if all the other evidence fits.
Again, he wasn't necessarily aiming to hit at that angle - or to hit the Pentagon at all. Remember, he was trying to crash it, not land it. The best pilot in the world wouldn't attempt an approach at that speed.
This has all been explained in detail by crash-site investigators. When we all sit around arguing the toss about it, it's futile.
There's loads of film - trouble is, it was all snapped up by the Pentagon afterwards (alledgedly pending a court case).
And this is where conspiracies are born. "To the best of your knowledge"? Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses are on record as seeing the plane.
See the problem is that when people legitimately question government practices, they get lumped in with this kind of conspiracy dross, and governments are able to get away with much more mundane wrongdoing because "you're either a conspiracy nut or you're not".
I've seen several reports of people casting doubt on such reports- from the firefighters who first attended the scene to others.
How can anyone explain the wings leaving the facade of the building virtually unscratched? Did they retract into the plane just before impact a la Thunderbirds or something?
Really? I can honestly say I have not read any report of any witnesses- though this would prove little either way to be honest.
The trouble with most conspiracy theorists is that they see the Government and armed forces as these massive super efficient entities capable of planning and conducting complex operations with no leaks. The trouble is governments and armed forces just aren't that efficient
The target is only 5 floors high, but it's very, very wide. On your own (I think) suggestion that the plane was only doing about 350mph, I looked that up and it would seem to be true (that's nearer 450 ft. per second) but when you consider that a heavily-laden 777 (for example) at 20 degree flaps is landed at about 200mph (consider the width of a runway) you get to see why it's certainly not outside the realms of possibility.
If you could reference that it would be good. The County Fire Chief is quoted as saying to the assembled press "We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached."
They folded back on themselves on impact. They are hollow and whilst they're built to carry 100 tonnes of jet in heavy weather, they're not built to force their entire length through reinforced concrete, steel and kevlar.
A quick google will set you straight. As for proving little either way?! A minute ago you were saying that the lack of eyewitnesses was a key piece of evidence but now I'm not allowed to use it in the case for the defense?! Level playing field please!
Not to mention the fact that rescue crews were pulling body parts out of the rubble. They'd have to be in on the act.
I don't think anyone knows for sure, but given the modus operandi and the alleged trajectory of the flight, I think the suggestion was the plane was to be crashed onto the side of the building, not 'dive-bombed' it. A very skillful pilot, that pesky terrorist was!
But the full quote is far more interesting, isn't it?
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." " You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
And yet the hollow tube the fuselage is can do such damage? I don't think we can have it both ways...
In fact, given the enormous pressure the wings are design to cope with, I daresay they should have done far more damage than the fuselage.
And with regard to the overall damage to the building and its surroundings, do you really think that this is a plausible crash site aftermath for a 47 x 38m passenger jet?
Fair enough.
Too speculative to be meaningful. You can't take the trajectory to be indicative of anything.
Only if it's taken out of context. Conspiracy sites widely *lied* that the fire chief was asked, "where is the aircraft?", when in fact he was asked if there was any of the aircraft left - an acknowledgment that there was unlikely to be. The quote then merely becomes an observation of the disintegration of the plane on impact.
As I've already said, 2 planes were already observed doing that kind of damage. You'll also find that most of the conspiracy sites are making the case that the Pentagon plane didn't do enough damage considering its size and weight.
We are also ignoring the physical properties of materials travelling at that kind of speed.
This contradicts any physical law about applying a lot of mass to a small surface area - imagine someone standing on your hand in stilletoes as opposed to wide bottomed shoes.
I don't know enough about crash-site investigation to say it isn't (incidentally MR, note the evidence of burning on the exterior of the building). What, in your opinion, is wrong with it?
But most objects will cause considerable damage when travelling at speed. The concept that the wings (never mind the massive, heavy engines) didn't do as much as scratch the building's facade while the fuselage went through and left a hole like the coyote going through a wooden fence in a Roadrunner cartoon is frankly laughable.
The total lack of damage and debris to the crash site?
Compare the almost immaculate state of the ground with other plane crashes:
He wasn't puzzled by it. He was poitning out that there wasn't much left - the context is all important. The middle picture you supplied bears out the idea that the plane disintegrated in the crash (except that the tailfins are still intact in that crash. The Pentagon plane crashed into the interior of the building - that's where the debris is for the most part. The other site provided on this thread goes into some detail on various bits of the wreckage.
Again, all explained on the aforementioned site in much better terms than I could. Also, if it wasn't a plane, what's the alternative?
Is just a myth. Forgive me if I keep referring to the linked site but it shows a much better picture from before the outer wall collapsed.
have you actualy read anything about this or are you just making it up?
another pile of bullshit given was ...the bodies were vapourised but miraculously the gov declared within days that they had recovered dna!
bodies vapourised but tiny and very delicate dna survived ...yeah right.
where do you get the bit about pulling bodies out ...out of what?
Look no further than the linked site: "60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage"...
I've never heard your story. Where's that from?
top military flying brains ...
the aircraft wasn't "vapourised". You can see bits of it in the pictures.
I've never read that. What's your source?
A few Boeing employees - it's a big company mind. My uncle used to work for them.
One NASA data guy.
Hmm...
one wheel with the wrong type of tyre on ...and one engine ...no seats no bodies strewn across the lawn.
top naval aircraft guy on board and others similar ...in old threads about this there are links which i can't be arsed to look for right now ...again.
funny how the plane hit the part of the building ...the only part ...which had been out of bounds and covered in tarps for many months?
funny how a cnn news cast was shown on tv stating there was no sign of any plane crash ...government stopped it ever being shown again ...the link to watchit is on here somewhere.
no bodies on the lawn along with no scorching or scuffing of any kind?
fully laden with fuel yet ...NO ...signs of fire damage?
yes there is a little charring frm the explosion but nothing like an aircraft full of fuel would create.
the dna? was all over the news within days.
funny how this government have been shown to be lying about EVERYTHING so far in this war on terror ...
funny this same govcernment had the airforce and navy practising flying passenger planes into civilian buildings ...
whats the heaviest ...toughest ...most solid bits on the plane ...the engines of course.
the size of those engines hitting a building at three hundred miles an hour ...causes no damage?
while the flimsy pointy bit drills a hole through the place ...come on!
its that age old question of what happens when the unstoppable force meets the imovable object.
the entire impact made the whole and the impact plus what it crashed into destroyed the plane. There are eyewitnesses of the plane coming in and crashing, are they all in on it to?