Tiger's Eye Posted December 11, 2005 Posted December 11, 2005 I came across this weblink last night, and I must say that it really did bring about a lot of questions...not only about the real occurence of certain events, but also the way of our government...It was really kinda creepy watching it. It gave me the chills. But that coulda been because of the background music included Neways, here's the link: http://www.sahaskatta.com/html/videos_2.html#Main. Basically, this video presents a different theory about the plane crash in the Pentagon, and I must admit that some of what was being presented in the video seemed kinda convincing, to say the least. It's pretty self-explanatory, so I recommend that you guys check it out. If any of it is really true, then our government...really screwed up...some crazy stuff. K, cya l8er! Tiger
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 11, 2005 Posted December 11, 2005 http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm All hail Snopes.
Tiger's Eye Posted December 11, 2005 Author Posted December 11, 2005 http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htmAll hail Snopes. Wow, interesting. Hmmmm...It's a pretty controversial issue, isn't it? Pretty mind-boggling. Cheers, Tiger
ecoli Posted December 11, 2005 Posted December 11, 2005 Wow, interesting. Hmmmm...It's a pretty controversial issue, isn't it? Pretty mind-boggling. no... it's not mind boggling or controversal at all. People who say that it was wasn't caused by an airplane are simply avoiding all the evidence (probably on purpose just to be a pain in everyone's ass)
Pangloss Posted December 11, 2005 Posted December 11, 2005 Moved to Pseudoscience. I'm not interested in seeing these 9/11 conspiracy theads on the politics board anymore unless they are backed with objective evidence AND carry a relevent and non-ideological political perspective or argument.
bascule Posted December 11, 2005 Posted December 11, 2005 Oh butterchrist, how easily unskeptical people are infected with pathological memes. Please, for the love of god, do your research before you spread a meme. Google is great for these kinds of things. For example, try typing "Did an airplane really hit the Pentagon?" into Google, click I'm Feeling Lucky, and here's what you'll get: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html That's a pretty concise summary of the evidence. Certainly much better than a random video that asks bullshit questions and merely spreads FUD.
Daecon Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 It was a weather balloon! A weather balloon I tell you!
clarisse Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 no... it's not mind boggling or controversal at all. People who say that it was wasn't caused by an airplane are simply avoiding all the evidence (probably on purpose just to be a pain in everyone's ass) As a matter of fact I agree completely but still, here is yet another video that questions if it was truly a plane: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
bascule Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 I agree completely Okay but still, here is yet another video that questions if it was truly a plane: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main Oh god, if you know a meme is bullshit then why do you insist on spreading it?
clarisse Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Oh god, if you know a meme is bullshit then why do you insist on spreading it? To entertain gullible people
Lance Cho Posted January 14, 2006 Posted January 14, 2006 Hmm I've got a question. If a boeing with that much jet fuel in is trapped inside a concrete structure like the Pentagon, then wouldn't the force of the explosion of Jet Fuel cause what's left of the plane to be incinerated? There for only small peices are found? :D
Red_Ninja Posted January 19, 2006 Posted January 19, 2006 The whole 'story' about no passenger jet hitting the Pentagon is an old intelligence trick called "poisoning the well". The general idea is to purposely put out ridiculous lies to be mixed with embarrassing truth. The media can use the foolish story to ridicule people. There are lots of people with very valid and serious concerns about the events of Sept. 11th, which I won't go into right now. They can expect to be treated as wackos by being associated with that kind of story. Job done I guess. By the way folks the rest of the damn plane is in the building. Use your heads.
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 My roommate was watching a conspiracy theory movie the other day and I thought of something. If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?
Phi for All Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation?Umm, Bermuda. Yeah, Bermuda, *that's* the ticket!
bascule Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 My roommate was watching a conspiracy theory movie the other day and I thought of something. If the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? The movie didn't explain that. Do any of the conspiracy theorists have an explanation? The plane landed at a secret airbase, where Bush and Cheney personally gassed the cabin, loaded all the dead bodies into the tip of a cruise missile, and fired it at the Pentagon. And that's not morbid humor. I have friends who actually believe that. It's really sad. Apparently that makes more sense to them than the "official explanation"
Jthesnake08 Posted March 15, 2007 Posted March 15, 2007 The plane landed at a secret airbase, where Bush and Cheney personally gassed the cabin, loaded all the dead bodies into the tip of a cruise missile, and fired it at the Pentagon. And that's not morbid humor. I have friends who actually believe that. It's really sad. Apparently that makes more sense to them than the "official explanation" WOW.....people will believe almost anything these days!!!
Jthesnake08 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I know numerous of people that watched this video called loose change and they devoutly believe that The President bombed the trade center towers and the pentagon and that there were no planes to begin with. Kind of crazy when hundreds of people stood and saw the planes hit the buildings! http://www.loosechange911.com
hotcommodity Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Its true that some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are completely stupid. But why not tackle the issues that have validity? For instance, why was building 7 destroyed when it had little to no damage whatsoever? I suppose it was just a coincidence that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the trade center complex, took out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and bought up building 7 just a few months before the event.
Jthesnake08 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Its true that some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are completely stupid. But why not tackle the issues that have validity? For instance, why was building 7 destroyed when it had little to no damage whatsoever? I suppose it was just a coincidence that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the trade center complex, took out a multi-million dollar insurance policy and bought up building 7 just a few months before the event. I know that seems suspicious but honestly that has to be coincidental. I think some people get so consumed in movies and books, etc. and then believe every far fetched thing that could happen.
insane_alien Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 building7, wasn't that the one that had a big chunk taken out of it and smoke pouring out one whole side. it looked pretty damn damaged to me before it went down.
hotcommodity Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 I know that seems suspicious but honestly that has to be coincidental. I think some people get so consumed in movies and books, etc. and then believe every far fetched thing that could happen. You're exactly right, when people dont do their homework they can end up looking like fools. But this does not dismiss the fact that there are indeed issues to be dealt with concerning 9/11. I'll take it a step further with respect to the Silverstein issue. Building 7 came down due to a controlled demolition. The building did not need to be demolished as it had little to no damage. Additionally, it takes months to set up a controlled demolition, and yet they were able to demolish the building in a matter of hours. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.
bascule Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 You're exactly right, when people dont do their homework they can end up looking like fools. But this does not dismiss the fact that there are indeed issues to be dealt with concerning 9/11. I'll take it a step further with respect to the Silverstein issue. Building 7 came down due to a controlled demolition. The building did not need to be demolished as it had little to no damage. Additionally, it takes months to set up a controlled demolition, and yet they were able to demolish the building in a matter of hours. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. Yes, there's something wrong with this picture, either: 1) FDNY covertly planted explosives days/weeks before 9/11, and on one who worked in the building has said a peep - OR - 2) Never before in history have buildings so large been brought down by explosions/fire. This is because never before in history have skyscrapers like the Twin Towers been hit by something containing as much flammable/explosive material as a transcontinetal Boeing 767. This, combined with the massive amount of petroleum products found in your typical office building, resulted in an unprecedented explosion/fire, spilling debris onto a building with a system of diesel-fueled backup generators. The combination of falling debris and a diesel-fueled fire brought the building down. Please think about these two possibilites. Then, try listening to Larry Silverstein's statements in the context of #2. Think about the "tremendous loss of life" which occured when a building full of firefighters collapsed. Now think that hundreds of firefighters died trying in futility to preserve buildings that you own. Now imagine two have collapsed already, and a third is about to. Do you: 1) ask the firefighters to keep fighting the good fight, even if they don't have water. Gotta fight for your property, even if it's futile. 2) pull the firefighters out of the building, let it collapse, and spare some human lives on a day when so many have already been lost.
hotcommodity Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 I understand where you're coming from, but again, the collapse was a result of a controlled demolition. Buildings do not have the tendency to collapse inwards, unless each successive floor is blown out, implicative of a controlled demolition. I know you like people to back up what they say with evidence, as do I, so I'll do just that. Larry Silverstein appeared in a PBS documentary called Rebuilding America where he says that building 7 was "pulled," in other words, a controlled demolition: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=larry+silverstein So the question stands, how could they pull the building within a matter of hours when controlled demoltions takes months to set up? Additionally, you mentioned that the impact and burning of jet fuel caused the collapse of the twin towers. However, the towers were made of steel beams. Steel melts at a temperature of roughly 2500°F, but jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1796 °F. You could pour burning jet fuel on steel all day and iits not going to do a thing to it, because it can only burn at a rough maximum of 1796 °F. This is only part of whats wrong with the official 9/11 story, but I'll see how you respond to this, then we can proceed.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Additionally, you mentioned that the impact and burning of jet fuel caused the collapse of the twin towers. However, the towers were made of steel beams. Steel melts at a temperature of roughly 2500°F, but jet fuel burns at a temperature of 1796 °F. You could pour burning jet fuel on steel all day and iits not going to do a thing to it, because it can only burn at a rough maximum of 1796 °F. This is only part of whats wrong with the official 9/11 story, but I'll see how you respond to this, then we can proceed. Assuming your numbers are correct, you're still forgetting something: steel doesn't have to melt to become weak. Buildings do not have the tendency to collapse inwards We haven't really established that, have we? Apart from the quote from Mr. Silverstein, you're just saying "it looked like a controlled demolition, so it had to be one." As for the quote from Silverstein, he said "just pull it." That could easily mean "just pull out." You can't limit your interpretation to make "pull" mean "demolish."
hotcommodity Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Assuming your numbers are correct, you're still forgetting something: steel doesn't have to melt to become weak. There are only three physical states; solids, liquids, and gases. If it was initially a solid, as the steel beams were, the next state would be one where it is melted. It doesnt matter how hot the substance gets, it will still be a solid until its melting point is reached. All materials have a certain heat capacity, and the increasing heat of the burning fuel would naturally be taken on by the steels heat capacity. It would definitely heat the steel, but not weaken it. We haven't really established that, have we? Apart from the quote from Mr. Silverstein, you're just saying "it looked like a controlled demolition, so it had to be one." As for the quote from Silverstein, he said "just pull it." That could easily mean "just pull out." You can't limit your interpretation to make "pull" mean "demolish." Everytime I've seen a building fall on its own, it has fallen sideways, thats simply because the bottom part of a buildings structure tends to hold. When was the last time you've seen a building fall all by itself and inward? And I'm sure you've seen controlled demolitions, and what happens there? The building always falls inward so as not to damage other buildings. This is where we need to use logic rather than extreme rationalization. Larry Silverstein said "pull it," then they break to a video of the collapse of the building...come on. If he meant pull the firefighters out, then he would have said just that, but its necessary to follow the context that its in. He says "pull it," and they show the building collapse.
Recommended Posts