World trade center video

[ziggyjuarez]

Good.Continue manker...

[lynx]

It's interesting how all the "heat" seems to have been taken off what happened at the Pentagon. Here's a snippet from Popular Mechanics, in their "debunking" of the theory that it wasn't a 757 which hit that building, with my comments in red.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. Strange, because if you look at the impact of the planes into WTC 1 & 2 that's exactly what happened. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns the load bearing columns are inside the building, how would this affect the size of the hole made on the outside of the building?, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. Sozen seems to be suggesting that under impact conditions solids behave more like liquids. On the contrary, under high speed impact liquids actually behave more like solids since they can't flow out of the way. What he is suggesting is just nonsense. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Well, he actually got that bit right, it didn't happen

I've seen a soft tallow candle fired at a group of concrete building blocks, it went straight through the first two and was embedded in the third. The hole in the first block was as neat as if it had been drilled. The impact speed was about 250mph, far slower than the impacts of 9/11. Is this guy really expecting people to believe that hardened aluminium is going to fold up like butter while a candle with a consistency not unlike butter acts like hardened metal?

He is trying to tell us that the nose hit first, but rather than that part of the aircraft slowing down, it is the wings which haven't yet hit anything which just fold back of their own accord. Obviously, being the Pentagon, it must be shielded by invisible metal bending rays.

If that's the best that PM can come up with regarding what happened at the Pentagon, it casts doubt on anything they come up with in respect to the events of 9/11.

[Barbarossa]

Snopes has got an article on the "Pentagon impact not a 757" conspiracy theory (Verdict - False), but oddly enough there is nothing (yet) on the WTC7 theory...

...which surprises me.. Snopes doesn't usually let me down...

[GepperRankins]

Snopes has got an article on the "Pentagon impact not a 757" conspiracy theory (Verdict - False), but oddly enough there is nothing (yet) on the WTC7 theory...

...which surprises me.. Snopes doesn't usually let me down...

i think lynx detective work pwns that rebuttle. it would have punched a hole or splatted on the wall, meaning there was some left outside. where's the wing that sheered off anyway?

[Barbarossa]

Snopes has got an article on the "Pentagon impact not a 757" conspiracy theory (Verdict - False), but oddly enough there is nothing (yet) on the WTC7 theory...

...which surprises me.. Snopes doesn't usually let me down...

i think lynx detective work pwns that rebuttle. it would have punched a hole or splatted on the wall, meaning there was some left outside. where's the wing that sheered off anyway?

You have the nerve to ask about a wing???

Fine. In the other scenario, the one in which a 757 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, I'm going to ask "Where's the fucking plane??"

At 8:20 AM, American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board. If it didn't crash into the Pentagon - Where did it go??

[lynx]

Careful Dave, you seem to be assuming that just because the explanation is rubbish, then the opposite viewpoint must be true, but that's not the case.

If it was a 757 but it had been damaged beforehand that could explain why there was a missing wing and also why the hole was not as large as might be expected. Or course, if it was damaged in such a way that would open the question as to how the damage had occurred, and that might be just as embarrassing to the US government.

Edit: I would add one comment though.
Why would you ask a structural engineer (who by definition deals with static structures) to comment on high speed impacts, a subject totally outside his field of expertise?

[Cheese]

i think lynx detective work pwns that rebuttle. it would have punched a hole or splatted on the wall, meaning there was some left outside. where's the wing that sheered off anyway?

You have the nerve to ask about a wing???

Fine. In the other scenario, the one in which a 757 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, I'm going to ask "Where's the fucking plane??"

At 8:20 AM, American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board. If it didn't crash into the Pentagon - Where did it go??

After a somewhat mysterious sequence of events, they crashed on what appeared to be a deserted island. The chance of being found and rescued were fairly small, so the survivors had to cope with a set of challenges. They had to learn to survive on the island, a mysterious place with enough dangers on it's own. Also, they had to learn to live with each other if any success was to be expected. And finally, they had to live with themselves and their pasts.

Lost. Coming soon to Channel Four.

[Barbarossa]

Very comprehensive, impartial site here, if anyone is still interested...

http://911research.com/

[Rat Faced]

In the "Conspiracies" series, they decided that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, so that conspiracy theory was crap.

They couldnt debunk the WTC conspiracies, as there were just too many coincidences plus the fact the twin towers was designed to survive multiple crashes of that sort etc etc.. however, they couldnt support the Governmnet version either, so they had a "Jury still out" verdict.

The 4th plane they decided was almost certainly shot down, and the conspiracy theorists were right.

The thing about that 4th one for me is... why the hell cover it up? I dont think anyone, under the circumstances, would question the decision to shoot the thing down.. the only thing gained by covering it up, is to open more questions into the other planes.


Unfortunatly, i cant recall offhand all the arguments used in the program for and against the conspiracy theories.. but meh, im sure other Brits watch the program.

[RioDeLeo]

To claim a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon is utter crap, People saw it, bits of it were found, if it didn't crash, where the fuck is it? Also, this is no ordinary building, this is the Pentagon. Aeroplanes are very weak, if they were built to be any stronger they wouldn't fly, ask anyone who has ever sat by a window and watched the wings flex and move about. Crashing into the Pentagon at that speed would, and did, leave a very small hole, around 15 feet across, the size of the fuselage.

For those who believe no bits of aircraft were found, you're wrong, they found heaps, have a look here, for example >> Bits of the 757

Conspiracy theories are good for a laugh, and that's what most of them are, laughable, especially this one.