Am I becoming a crackpot?
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
No it makes sense. The crash isn't consistent with what is supposed to have happened.MMike said:
Why can't the public see the half dozen or so surveillance films showing the Pentagon getting hit? They've released a lot of the audio tapes from that day by now, why not those?
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htmToshi said:wouldn't you expect it to at least take the grass off the lawn? the pentagon "plane crash" is super sketchy.
oh, and please provide the pics of the wings/other parts that were inside the pentagon. thx
That's a good start.
Sorry, I think you guys are crackpots. I've studied crash investigations and the dynamics involved. I have no problem believing it's a plane.
I have a much harder time believing that thousands of people; FAA controllers, clean up crews, firemen, investigators, anyone who worked on the aircraft, the company that owned it, and the people who's relatives died, are all in some big conspiracy.
If the government were capable of covering up such a thing with so many thousand people involved, why would they need to fake a crash to go to war. They could go to war and no one would ever know if they just "covered it up". Send B2s there all day long and bomb the crap out of them, then send in teams to steal the oil. Cover it all up, no one will know. Where do you draw the line? If the government could fake a crash into the pentagon and fool thousands of people with direct knowledge, then there's really no need for that to happen as the government could directly do what they want without the public ever knowing.
The thread on mtbr; http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=184481
The wall collapsed at the time this picture was taken, but it also illustrates where the aircraft hit.
Go look at some surveliance videos, you'll see how hard it is to see things clearly that far away, moving at that fast of a closure rate. The frame rate of the camera leaves a big window for a 500mph airplane as well. There are plenty of crashes on the NTSB's website, some of them have videos that were taken from surveilance cameras...even when they're pointed in the right direction, the contrast between the sky and aircraft usually isn't great.syadasti said:
One big point about crash sites is the amount of wreckage usually doesn't add up to a "plane" when using the naked eye. You first have to collect all the scraps that are embedded into the structures, grass, and whatnot. This is a big problem when the building (pentagon) catches fire and the fuel burns. Secondly, when/if you finally get most of the peices together, the amount of debri usually doesn't look like it can make a whole plane due to the fact that nearly everything on the plane is hollow. Lastly, if you want another good example of what happens when a plane goes into the ground (with no structure in front) go look at the crash of the airliner that was "taken back" by the passengers, although the exact angle of the crash obviously can play a huge role. What the other crash displays is the size of debris that's associated with a crash, and yes, it doesn't look like there's an entire airplane on that crash site either.
http://www.rense.com/general64/911et.htm (to use the same sources as you did above)Jm_ said:
How does that assumption come from the fact that they won't release the tapes? I didn't suggest a grand conspiracy, merely that the public does not know everything that occured that day. What does the government have to lose by releasing them?
thanks for the link. i'm still hardly convinced: scraps of riveted aluminum, "lime green" pieces of cloth are weak evidence. the photos of purported landing gear and wheel fragments are more convincing, but i'd like to see the footage actually in this "Pentagon Under Fire" TLC video before commenting more on their validity.Jm_ said:
So going by that photo, and video shown on cnn minutes afterwards, the plane had completely atomized within seconds of crashing. It didnt gouge or burn the lawn, and the entire gigantic wingpan and tail section dissapeared along with the bodies and luggage of all of the victims?Jm_ said:http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
That's a good start.
Sorry, I think you guys are crackpots. I've studied crash investigations and the dynamics involved. I have no problem believing it's a plane.
I have a much harder time believing that thousands of people; FAA controllers, clean up crews, firemen, investigators, anyone who worked on the aircraft, the company that owned it, and the people who's relatives died, are all in some big conspiracy.
If the government were capable of covering up such a thing with so many thousand people involved, why would they need to fake a crash to go to war. They could go to war and no one would ever know if they just "covered it up". Send B2s there all day long and bomb the crap out of them, then send in teams to steal the oil. Cover it all up, no one will know. Where do you draw the line? If the government could fake a crash into the pentagon and fool thousands of people with direct knowledge, then there's really no need for that to happen as the government could directly do what they want without the public ever knowing.
The thread on mtbr; http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=184481
The wall collapsed at the time this picture was taken, but it also illustrates where the aircraft hit.
I think JM in this and the MTBR thread has summed this up quite well. If you believe in this conspiracy crap, it's only because you're naturally inclined to do so, not because of any honest examination of the facts.
The simple fact that I served the government, and know all too well the depth of its ineptitude helps me sleep at night.
The simple fact that I served the government, and know all too well the depth of its ineptitude helps me sleep at night.
Toshi said:
Did you see the mythbusters episode where they were trying to see if a stick of dynamite would loosen the concrete sticking to the inside of a cement truck?
For the finale they loaded it with lots of explosive, and blew the entire thing up. There was an engine block and a little bit of chassi left.
Everything else was gone.
So we're talking about so much energy that everything is blown into small peices, and if the fuel went into the building, I'd bet most of the aircraft did to, and it's turned into fairly small peices of debri from the impact. The pictures show the damage pretty well.
i can accept that high energy collisions/explosions can shatter things into small pieces. how did the wings disappear, however? the photos of the outside of the pentagon show adjacent windows to not be broken. given that the plane did not hit the ground first (as there is no evidence on the ground of such an impact) how did it manage to create such a neatly circumscribed hole?
Do you know missiles to have a dissimilar effect on adjacent windows than planes?Toshi said:
It so doesn't need 'tens of thousands of people'. Just think about that for a few minutes. Only people very high up need to know the big picture. Everyone else simply is assigned tasks that they carry out like good employees. They don't need to know 'why'.Jm_ said:
...and what about them? Why fly a smaller plane than you already have a big one? Why shoot a missile, when you've already hijacked a plane?Changleen said:
Yes. Thats a link to a well known missile. If that link, plus a hole in a building the proper size of a passenger jet fuselage is all you're basing this on, well, Id say its not a very convincing argument.Toshi said:
I agree with this point, it's Occams razor. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?BurlyShirley said:
The best answer I can give is a missile or small drone plane is more controlable and tested in tight high G manouvers than a commercial jet plane. Donald Rumsfield who would have had almost definatley have to have known about the whole deal if it was an inside job, also knowing he'd be sitting at his desk probably wouldn't want to risk a malfunction or slight miss with a 757 when he could have the guaranteed accuracy of military systems keeping him safe.
[thread hijack]
Freud would have just loved to have gotten his hands on you chang!
[/thread hijack]
Must you sexualise every thread you get involved with dude?Changleen said:
Freud would have just loved to have gotten his hands on you chang!
[/thread hijack]
The no plane at the pentagon theory is just noise. Forget about it.
Assuming that flight 77 did strike the pentagon, how could this have happened such a long time after it was known hijacked in the most heavily defended airspace in the world? That's the question I want answered.
Assuming that flight 77 did strike the pentagon, how could this have happened such a long time after it was known hijacked in the most heavily defended airspace in the world? That's the question I want answered.
My two guesses would be:RenegadeRick said:
#1. Military ineptitude. (trust me, it runs rampant)
#2. It's not as heavily defended as we thought.
Well he is a Pom and you know what THEY'RE like.DaveW said:[thread hijack]
Must you sexualise every thread you get involved with dude?
Freud would have just loved to have gotten his hands on you chang!
[/thread hijack]
You know, the government ISN'T that smart/sneaky. An organization that large has difficulty moving nimbly. I really wouldn't put it past them to do a shabby job of covering up the attacks.
Also, has anyone considered that perhaps a third party (NOT Islamic terrorists, and not the government) instigated the attack in an attempt to spark the events of today?
Also, has anyone considered that perhaps a third party (NOT Islamic terrorists, and not the government) instigated the attack in an attempt to spark the events of today?
just leave the jews out of thisblue said:
There are certainly many questions to be answered.
I think perhaps more intriguing than the scientific evidence is the fact that Bush's bro was the security guy that called off all bomb sniffing dogs before the trade center attack, and the fact the gov't won't release the 3 security tapes from the hotel, gas station, and traffic control showing the pentagon. And the fact they only released 5 frames showing the pentagon attack, and there was no plane shown in any of them, is really weird.
I think perhaps more intriguing than the scientific evidence is the fact that Bush's bro was the security guy that called off all bomb sniffing dogs before the trade center attack, and the fact the gov't won't release the 3 security tapes from the hotel, gas station, and traffic control showing the pentagon. And the fact they only released 5 frames showing the pentagon attack, and there was no plane shown in any of them, is really weird.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, let's just make that clear. Anyone level headed person who watches the videos of that day, however, can see that something just doesn't jive .Bicyclist said:
I'd say bicyclist's point is pretty key. Not only is there no plane, there is no anything. No debris cloud (the plane had already hit 5 light posts, there should have been a cloud of metal, fuel, hydraulic fluid etc already in the air trailing the plane), no mark on the lawn etc. The light posts just fell over...a plane moving at a few hundred miles an hour with that much kinetic energy behind it would have sent those poles flying....yet they were still on the highway. It's pretty absurd.
Clearly something hit the pentagon, but it's hard to believe it was a rather large airliner. If you go by the photos JM posted, the tail section and wings SHOULD be visible in those 5 frames sticking out the back of the fireball by a fair amount.
Also, it is pretty clear that planes flew into the 2 towers. What isn't clear is how all of a sudden they both came down with ridiculous precision from a fire on the upper floors. That just doesn't happen according to experts, including the standards bureau that certified the steel use in the construction. It also takes an insane amount of work to MAKE building implode, I highly doubt it can happen at random, for 3 buildings. 2 of which were hit with random huge ass projectiles in different places. Something is amiss.
Bomb sniffing dogs were called off days earlier, sections of the building were evacuated, small explosions can be seen and heard by witnesses before the buildings collapse and as they are collpasing, small flashes can be seen to coincide with these explosions. Sure it could be gas lines, fire extinguishers and basically anything else under pressure at the time...but it's odd.
Building 7 is just bizarre, it wasn;t even touched, but it as well fell into a neat little pile???
There is no way that I agree that they were brought down for monetary gain though. An already wealthy, oil tycoon president of a 1st world nation doesn't slaughter his own people for monetary gain. Not even a more corrupt than normal one.
For political capital however, I could understand. (I still find it really hard to believe though). I can see it perhaps being some small group inside the government, but i honestly don't think that Bush and his cronies aren't intelligent enough, coniving enough or corrupt enough to destroy a monument in one of their greatest cities, and murdering 3000+ of their own.
what about the gold stored in the basement levels of the wtc?Transcend said:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
Wasn't most of that found, and returned to the appropriate banks?Toshi said:
Edit: just over half was recovered if you go by public reports. So figure, what, maybe 3.4 actually was? Interesting read though.
And how do you move a few billion dollars worth of gold on the market, anyways? It isn't worth a cent if it's being warehoused in your garage. It's not like the local pawn shop is going to take it and it will turn a few heads when there is a sudden influx of that much gold into markets worldwide. I mean, we're talking MASSIVE amounts of gold here - in bar form.
I think if any $$ was to be made, it would most likely have been done electronically. Settlements on insurance policies and the like. Just numbers in bank accounts, not hard currency and frikkin' gold.
Political gain could be used to secure oil however (Iraq, I'm lookin' at you!), which in the long run woudl end up being $.
I can't help thinking that IF the US govt had wanted to stage this, the easiest (and probably cheapest) way to fake a plane being flown into the Pentagon simply would be to remote-control a plane into the Pentagon, there must be enough junk jets about to save the cost of a missile and trucking in a variety of debris to spread it about (without being seen).
Yes MMike, you are becoming a crackpot, the conspiracy theory just makes no sense. Where are all the trucks bringing in bits of burned wreckage and strewing it around the explosion site so quickly and stealthily?
Aye carumba.
Yes MMike, you are becoming a crackpot, the conspiracy theory just makes no sense. Where are all the trucks bringing in bits of burned wreckage and strewing it around the explosion site so quickly and stealthily?
Aye carumba.
fluff said:
Easier to hide the cost of an old phantom or the like out of one of the boneyards in the desert than to hide the cost of a cruise missle which cost $50mil a pop.
That's the thing; if you're gonna claim an airliner flew into a building and you need to simulate it, why not get an old redundant airliner and fly it into the building? Cheap, easy and totally realistic. Any other option is full of difficulties and very hard to cover up.DaveW said:
The "dusted" video really doesn't lend much support for the vapourizing theory IMO... That plane was more or less a missle. No great big sticky-out wings or anything.
Yes, of course the pentagon walls are crazy thick and strong...but if you break it down, ok, plane bounces of the ground.....supposedly breaks wings off? The wings would not shatter into oblivion just because of that. Then the wings disappear inside the building throught the 16' hole? But even then, the root of the wing (where it attaches to the fuse, is bigger than 16'. That would be pretty amazing for BOTH wings (admittedly not completely intact, but stillsome good sized chunks), to thread themselves through the hole.
Again, I really don't want to be the conspiracy nut....but some things don't add up.
However....if there was no plane, what happened to the passengers/crew that were apparently killed?
Yes, of course the pentagon walls are crazy thick and strong...but if you break it down, ok, plane bounces of the ground.....supposedly breaks wings off? The wings would not shatter into oblivion just because of that. Then the wings disappear inside the building throught the 16' hole? But even then, the root of the wing (where it attaches to the fuse, is bigger than 16'. That would be pretty amazing for BOTH wings (admittedly not completely intact, but stillsome good sized chunks), to thread themselves through the hole.
Again, I really don't want to be the conspiracy nut....but some things don't add up.
However....if there was no plane, what happened to the passengers/crew that were apparently killed?
I didn't see that episode of Mythbusters, but, I don't think that you can compare jet fuel with dynamite. Jet fuel burns, dynamite detonates. Unless of course the combination of jet fuel with the ingredients that go into a jet create an explosive. In which case I think I'll drive from now on...Jm_ said:
There is a difference between a conflagration (big fireball losta heat,from fuel for example) and a detonation (Big kaboom, very quickly released shockwave, from dynamite).
All the parts of the plane would have to break off, then follow the fuselage into the little hole in order to stay close enough to the fuel to burn up completely. I don't think that the fuel would detonate on impact, and vaporise the entire plane (minus a few bits and pieces). If it had detonated, vaporising the plane, I just don't see how those windows would have stayed intact.
None of it makes sense!!!!
And to BS, and Jm: have you guys watched any of the video I posted?
LikeI said, I've only watched part of it. And none of it ever made me say "ah-HA!! I knew it! To the caves everyone!!!" But there we a few things that definitely require some thought.
And the reason I ask this is because up until a few days ago, I had never looked at any of the conspiracy stuff.....it all required reading. And no-one wants that. This was almost like TV!
LikeI said, I've only watched part of it. And none of it ever made me say "ah-HA!! I knew it! To the caves everyone!!!" But there we a few things that definitely require some thought.
And the reason I ask this is because up until a few days ago, I had never looked at any of the conspiracy stuff.....it all required reading. And no-one wants that. This was almost like TV!
Now there's a conspiracy.MMike said:
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
I believe I did that mythbusters. Not only was it dynamite, but it was contained. The the instantaneous pressure build-up was immense. So BLAMMO!! Fuel that has been spilled is more likely to just go "WOOF". It shouldn't explode unless the pressure created from the burning is contained.
I believe I did that mythbusters. Not only was it dynamite, but it was contained. The the instantaneous pressure build-up was immense. So BLAMMO!! Fuel that has been spilled is more likely to just go "WOOF". It shouldn't explode unless the pressure created from the burning is contained.
Da Peach said: