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
what gives? the force or the object? wel it in this case it was the force that got it most but while it was destroyed it carried enough force to damage the immovable object, the building.
so you have one gone plane and one dmagaed building.
I'm sure any other building woould have been totalted by it, but the pentagon? too strong.
I'D BET MONEY THAT ANY HONEST oops caps ...computer simulation that threw two huge jet engines at three hundred miles an hour ex yards apart from each other at that buoilding...closely followed by fuel supplies ...would not come up with results that your asking me to swallow.
as I said, the pentagon is just too storng to be totaled by it, but it did take damage.
this to strong building had a tunnel bored right through it and out the other side by ...a pointy piece of aluminium and wood ...but big strong steel engines travelling at 300mph ...bounced off?
if they did ...how come they only found one ...and the one they found was intact and no damage to the brickwork.
don't you see something wrong here?
The official version isn't that it was vapourised. Planes don't vapourise and as your conspiracy theory has claimed that there is no debris and then issued pictures with debris in, that would appear to be the height of stupidity.
Well if you can't be arsed to look for them, then I really can't be arsed to believe you - why the hell would I? Simply believing you based on your word would mark me out as gullible enough to believe the official line.
No, not really. What were they doing behind that tarp? Making a hole that apparently nobody would believe was made by a 757?
That would be the report by Jamie MacIntyre where he said there were no large pieces of debris and thus he couldn't see any sign of a plane crash? But that's not actually what he was saying at all if you watch the whole thing and take his later quotes on the subject into account. He was actually saying that you couldn't tell just by looking atthe lawn, what had crashed into the Pentagon.
You've already looked at a picture of the fire damage. This is a building lined with reinforced concrete and kevlar. It's not good stuff for burning.
WRT what?
Well you've already made up your mind.
Can we have more info on this? I can't think it would be very useful training their pilots to fly into buildings. I don't think their pilots are fanatical enough.
cos this topic has been done so many times!
the us training pilots to fly civilian aircraft into large buildings shouldn't need a link seeing as it is now common knowledge.
how easy once that kind of training is in place ...to tell the guys your training that today we are going to do such and such a thing ...a simulated attack on the kind of targets that terrorists might choose.
and then the planes are taken over remotely ...by the guys in building seven ...
explain to me ...the kind of magic your believing in that can throw three things at this building ...the weakest bit goes straight through.
the two serious bits ...no effect at all.
now that has to be magic.
Then how come you've signally failed to answer the majority of the points put to you? What happened to the real Flight 77? What did crash into the Pentagon if not a plane? Why have you provided no links and just repeated the widely discredited or uncontextualized quotes from the tin-foil hat brigade?
Not even near good enough. Did you know that the Inuit have 70 different words for snow? Everyone knows that, but it isn't actually true.
You'l have to prove the training actually happened first.
Even the CNN guy you've referred to saw the windshield as well.
I'm not quite sure what your difficulty is here. The plane crashed through the wall, therefore the majority of debris is inside. Perhaps the explosion of the remainder of the fuel blew debris back outside?
what 757 is made of wood? and what engine has brick work?
Honestly, I know planes disintegrate on impact often as not... but something is fishy with the pentagon too. This topic has been done.
They found enough small bits of plane to make...a plane. Remarkable.
The fact that people are peddling the same old twaddle suggests that it really hasn't.
A crash site that shows an aircraft being capable of cutting a precise, neat, almost perfect round hole in a reinforced building but shows no damage whatsoever done by the wings or the engines does not make a lot of sense I'm afraid.
If the plane impacted the ground before reaching the building then the fuselage must have been starting to break up just like the wings and engines allegedly did, and would have never created such perfect, deep and incisive hole.
And if the plane impacted directly into the building then the wings and the engines must have done extensive damage to facade- if not as penetrating certainly very destructive on the surface- and in the case of the engines, a couple of holes just as visible as that allegedly made by the fuselage.
And yet we have a fuselage that apparently went into a reinforced concrete building like a hot drill through a block of butter, and a pair of wings and two massive, heavy, dense engines that disintegrated on impact without leaving as much as a scratch on the facade?
That for me is the crux of the matter, and something that nobody, be government officials or apologist websites, has been able to explain to date.
There's no such thing as a "regular" crash site.
I'm still a little lost as to what kind of shape people wanted. The hole in the wall made by the "plane" was about 90ft wide - that's big enough for a plane with quite a lot of its wings still attached to go through. It's difficult to show without a diagram, but the most likely shape you get from hurling a large chunk of metal at a brick wall, is going to be circular.
Inside the Pentagon, the second wall bears a hole 12 ft wide through which one of the engines appears to have blown. The wings, of course, are fairly lightweight, hollow and full of fuel, so you wouldn't want to use them to cut through anything.
...Nor the crash site investigators? And "apologist websites"?!
If this picture is to be believed there is no way the engines and most of the wings fit through the hole.
Which brings us to the same question? Where is the damage caused by the wings and the engines?
Well, if any website that raises questions about the official line of events is automatically labelled a 'consipiracy' site, surely we can call those who blindly adhere to the official version without questioning anything as apologist can't we?
How many passenger jet crashes into buildings have we seen? 9/11 was pretty much my first.
That picture demonstrates that the engines would fit through easily. All we've got to do is either: 1) shear off the wing tips on impact (note the extensive damage to the lower left hand side of the hole); or 2) come in at something less than a completely level course (i.e. one wing lower than the other) - the latter fits the eye-witness accounts of a spiral turn and one wing dipping onto the ground before impact.
I tend to label the sites that clearly just make stuff up 'conspiracy sites'. Sites that sensibly question, I'm fine with. Sites that, in the face of a huge canon of evidence, claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon, I just laugh at.
Actually that picture demonstrates little, seeing as it was taken after part of the building had collapsed (demonstrated by the neat 'cut' in the wall).
The fact remains that various pictures taken shortly after impact of both the building's facade and the ground are remarkable for the lack of damage shown. If one of the wings and engines collided with ground before impact, where is the damage to the ground?
Well I know it is easy to laugh at some suggestions. I've laughed at several myself regarding the WTC planes carrying missiles on pylons attached to their fuselage and such. But 'evidence' can be made up, and most people wouldn't be the wiser for it. If an 'expert' tells you there is nothing wrong with the crash site, you would tend to believe it.
Do you think that if the government wanted people to believe something they would have any trouble to come up with 'witnessess' and with 'expert advice' to back it up?
I can't find any pictures of it to compare unfortunately.
Well it's your picture.
They most certainly aren't remarkable for a lack of damage. Damage
I haven't seen a decent picture of the lawn to make a judgement as to whether or not the wing hit the ground. When emergency services arrived, they covered the ground in sand to stop their vehicles getting bogged down.
And if a random Internet geek's site contradicts them, I have no more reason to believe him either.
No. They would have trouble coercing an entire freeway of traffic and all of the emergency service workers who went to the site however (especially given the loss of life already at the WTC). There's no way on Earth they could get away with that. This isn't the X-Files.
Have another one:
Do you really think a 757 and much of the wings and engines could fit through that?
This is one of the few around:
Again, a remarkable lack of damage.
Actually all they need to do is put forward a number of witness (10, 15, 20) who claim to have seen the airplane fly low and crash into the building. All the emergency teams were going to see is debris.
Through what? That white square? That picture isn't of the main impact site and is obscured by smoke and water.
Possibly because the plane would have hit the ground some way out of frame.
But hundreds of eyewitnesses are on record. The crews were wandering about amidst bits of the plane and body parts.
Here's another picture of the immediate aftermath of the incident:
I'm sorry. We're obviously not going to convince each other no matter how long we go on. But I still maintain that a Boeing 757 did not crash there and caused the damaged seen (or rather, not seen). I'm not exactly a supporter of conspiracy theories, but in my view there is something simply quite not right about the Pentagon incident.
The main impact is actually behind the left-hand fire engine.
Given that the plane flew in at a 50 degree angle, the debris would likely be a little way out of the left of frame. There are lots of pictures showing debris.
Here's another picture of the immediate aftermath of the incident:
Well that's tanatamount to admitting to having a closed mind isn't it? Surely given enough evidence and having enough shot down, one must admit to the possibility of admitting defeat?
Christ! I didn't realise you were actually going that far! So what did crash there? Given that there was indisputably a 90 ft hole in the side of the Penatgon, given the fact that Flight 77 and all passengers and crew have disappeared, given that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon and given the sheer necessary scale and probability of the scam being uncovered, you still think that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon?!
On the other side, all we have is a number of apparent absences to demonstrate a case.
Do you ever wonder if that kind of skepticism isn't being used by the government to get away with more stuff, because no-one takes it seriously anymore?
And when I post a different angle, the impact is now "behind the left-hand fire engine".
Where exactly is the impact/debris? It would seem that it changes location to magically find itself just out of every single picture I post!
Yes, in what seems to be exactly the same area covered by earlier pictures- pictures that show a lawn immaculate enough to play a game of football on.
What evidence? I was actually being polite and agreeing to disagree. You seem just as happy discrediting my evidence as I am discrediting yours.
I don't know. It could have been anything. For instance, a cruise or bunker-busting missile. In short, the only thing capable of making such perfect punctures in heavily fortified concrete military installations:
And that's the last (I believe) exit hole as well. Do you really think that a passenger plane's fuselage is capable of going through many different concrete reinforced walls and still produce that at the end?
Silly Americans, spending billions of dollars in GBU-28 bunker busting bombs when all they needed all along is to crash an old airliner into Saddam's fortresses!
Can you provide a link for this? Because all I can find, and this includes sources who say it was definitely a 757 that did it, are sizes of from as little as 16ft to 65ft.
From a pro-757 contribution itself:"Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole."
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
From one that questions the 757 story:
It should be noted that the original hole was much smaller. The 65 ft wide hole developed when a section of the wall collapsed later.
Look at the following photos, taken soon after the crash, before that section of wall collapsed. The thick smoke and the water jets from the firefighters make it difficult to get a clear view, but we can determine that the hole wasn't anywhere near even 40 ft wide. Probably less than 20. In most of the photos, it's difficult to find any hole at all.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
Never mind that even a 90ft hole would still leave some room for doubt about the ever-so-elusive wings and the lack of damage they inflicted anyway...
It wouldn't be very difficult at all to present hundreds of names and addresses and witness statements to the press. Who is really going to (or be able to) physically find the people in question and put a face to every name?
Perhaps. Then again, if governments didn't cry wolf at any given opportunity perhaps people would be more willing to believe them.
No, they didn't. At all. Ever.
but in this case ...those lines don't seem to fit.
everything about the 9/11 attacks is so so susp iciuos.
nothing is in the reaqlms of reality ...yet still people keep on making excuses for a government made up of people from the reagan days ...the pnac bunch ...who quite publicly stated that for america to go into the new century as being all powerful ...as a the most powerful country on earth ...being able to retain that level of power ...
'we need another pearl harbour to galvanise the american people and the world' ... the first few weeks in office gwb warning the russians and the chinese ...not to get in the way of the american plan for the new century ...cos america would use every means at its disposal ...at the time seen as a nuclear threat ...to achieve its domination and controlagenda ...and people thinkinking ...what the fuck! you can't just come into office and threaten the world ...byut they did ...
to still see all these huge holes as cons ....i'm wasting my time.
live deluded ...it's safer in the short term ...the short term ...
Frankly, it's possible that someone photoshopped it too. You're showing pictures completely obscured by smoke and water - they show nothing.
I should imagine most of the debris would be found inside the building given that was the direction of all of the forces involved.
Another Explanation
You misunderstand. I meant hypothetically, if we both approach this with open minds, one of us ought to be able to produce enough evidence to convince the other.
There is no perfect hole...
The plane didn't produce that hole. It was the landing gear.
That would work but it wouldn't be economically viable and missiles are more manouverable and faster and generally evade anti-aircraft batteries.
Link
Taken out of context - it's the landing gear exit hole.
If you read the gist of that site, it's actually debunking the passage you quote.
These people have no problem with it
You wouldn't have to visit all of them. A random section would do.
Missing the point. I think it's far more likely that the government favours the division being caused amongst the investigative factions. Someone saying that no plane hit the Pentagon is a godsend for them because all questioning of events gets tarred with the same brush.
Yeah, 'cos giving a huge statement of intent like that is the brightest thing to do before you pull off the biggest con-trick in history...
That I find amusing. See, I have no delusions about the nobility of governments. I also have no delusions about their competence. There's no way they could pull off something this big...but they could benefit from the aftermath...divide and rule...
Sure, the most powerful goverment in the world couldn't pull of something like this.
No, they couldn't. There'd have to be thousands complicit in it. people like you and I. They're not a different breed you know?
I don't see how.
So, two people high up in the US governemt funded covertly "Al-Qaeda" as it became known, and told them to do it, without ever revealing who they were.
Did you know, two people in the UK know and have the ability to being about the apocalypse? We could never be consulted? All it takes... is the chap with the suitacase to press some red buttons, warhead are fired from submarines, retaliation, and nuclear war. Resulting in our death. One man can do that - I am pretty sure the Bush Administration could do something far smaller.
the fact that reagan and his chums were trying to figure out how to invade and control afghanistan and iraq ...being advised by the people who stated america needed another pearl harbour and those very people ...taking and occupying the white house by fraud ...doesn't worry you?
they finaly got an excuse/reason ...to invade both countries after 25 years of wanting to ...all proven now to be based on lies ...the whole war on terror proven to be a fraud ...the lack of any kind of investigation into the whole events of that awful day ...9/11 ...everything about the way a guy n a cave is supposed to have planned with such precision such a complex set of events...the fact of the new york buildings coming down very suspiciously ...every one of them ...the fact that the oil company unacol ...owned managed etc by the binladens and bushes and rumsys ...have wanted government control of afghanistan and iraq for their pipeline ...the fact that everything is fraud and lies with a trackable history ...means diddly shit to the populace.
every single act this us government has encated asnd perpetrated has proven to be dishonest on a scale not seen in my lifetime ...and still people defend them ...still people look for ways it could all be true ...despite everything else being proved to be criminal ...all the best everyone ...