Its collapse isn't even mentioned in the official report.Transcend said:
Am I becoming a crackpot?
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
Silverstein got a huge payout on this. See:Transcend said:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein_print.html
and
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html
we are talking about BILLIONS.
Oh and going back to the "the simplest answer is usually the right one"....trying to explain how a big thing made a little hole is difficult. However....(and I can't find a decent pic), the hole in the pentagon bares a striking resemblance to the holes that cruise missile leave in buildings. (Including the intact windows adjacent to the holes). To me this almost becomes the simpler explanation.....
But why use a missile when you have access to anything you want, including an airliner?MMike said:
Good question. Assuming for a moment this is a big conspiracy, it would certainly make the story easier to explain.fluff said:
But rigging a 757 to run by remote control isn't that easy/cheap to do. And then to fly it with the degree of accuracy required for the operation....than would be no small feat. I would think it would be pretty tricky to remotely fly a 757 that low to the ground and hit the pentagon. A cruise missile is pretty much a no-brainer.
.....not to mention the number of people that would have to be involved with the modification of the 757. The fewer people in on the project, the better, n'est-ce pas?
Uhuh, but then you need to truck in the plane debris to strew around - how many people would be needed for that?MMike said:
No one wanted to give the order to kill a hundred or so American citizens. Or, someone did (I have trouble imagining Cheney losing too much sleep over it) but the President didn't concur.BurlyShirley said:
The guy sat in a catatonic state for seven minutes in front of a bunch of schoolchildren. He's not equipped to make a snap decision like that.
Also bear in mind that the German govt recently debated a law to ensure such a plance would be shot down and the bill was rejected. No one wants to make that call.Silver said:
For all three pieces they found?fluff said:
And how many questions would there be if they found that the plane was remote controlled? Say that the remote controlled plane didn't dissolve...lots of wreckage left. And hello... what's this? No bodies? remotely operated actuators? I suppose they could have filled the plane with explosives to be sure they finish the job. But again flying a plane by remote control would be very difficult and very risky. A stray gust of wind, a flock of geese...all kinds of things could derail the plan.... and that's REALLY what you don't want....a remotely controlled 757 full of explosives, misses its target and hits a nearby elementary school... or something. A missile would be... uh..."sure fire"... The risk of failure would too high (IMO) to use an airplane.....not to mention, faster, cheaper etc etc....
If a plane didnt hit the pentagon where did the missing plane and passengers go? Did they park it in the hanger where the moon landings were filmed? Also the hits at the WTC would be enough to outrage the US. There would be no reason to fire a missle into the pentagon
Watch loose change, FAA records show a few planes landing where and when they were not supposed to be. It also shows multiple planes with the same tail numbers.Random said:
Also - to make it more believable. You don't attack your own headquarters do you?
BurlyShirley said:
Of course this theory mainly rests on the idea that all the other govenment servants are as inept as Briley shirley....... :hot:
Ok if the plane did land somewhere else what about the passengers? Where they all killed off or forced to live in exile in Mexico and never allowed to contact anyone again?Transcend said:
Again, watch the video. The faa report saws they were evacuated to an EMPTY FAA control hanger on the opposite site of the airport from everyone else, and in under 30 mins. They were also mostly govt employees.Random said:
Transcend said:
Thats the problem, they had the plane they could crash into the pentegon. Why go to all the trouble of hiding the plane, getting rid of the passengers, and then getting a fighter jet to fire a missle into the building to cover up the fact that the now missing plane didnt crash into the pentegon like they want everyone to believe. It gets to complicated to be resonable.
I dont want to watch the video because it is too long. Do you have a link to that part of the report?
Was that sarcasm? Cos if it was then; the staged attack didn't work so well, from what I can see here there is a substantial number of people who suspect it was staged.Transcend said:
Then again, the world is full of crackpots, after all.
I'm not saying anyone (well, except maybe Dick Cheney) wants to make that call.fluff said:
All I'm saying is that you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why the plane didn't get shot down. The "decider" crapped his pants and turned to stone for 7 minutes before someone decided to get him...Incompetence explains that better than an elaborate conspiracy.
Yeah. Especially from this bunch.Silver said:
Of course it was sarcasm. The braintrust running the USA at the current time probably can't see the sarcasm you picked up upon however.fluff said:
Clearly. But IF the plane ladning/takeoff/evacuation data they used is correct and legit...it raises a few questions.Jm_ said:
Too many things just don't add up. I don't think there is a gigantic conspiracy, but I also don't think that even a small portion of the official story is true. At this point, 1 + 1 = 9 if you believe the official story.
Erm, that documentary you posted shows the CIA doing it back in 1984... Landings and a deliberate crash.MMike said:
Having just scanned the 7+ pages of this thread I thought I would comment on a few items that were mentioned, keeping in mind that a) I work in the aircraft industry and b) I’ve had graduate level classes on aircraft accident investigation.
First, I wouldn’t assume the bulk of the fuselage and wings “vaporized” on impact as much as they were consumed during the post crash fire. I’ll have to watch that video again.
Second, think of the fuselage of the 757 as a soda can getting squished at impact, the size of the resulting debris field will reflect this.
Third, the reason there is not more engine debis that is larger is that most of the components were most likely destroyed due to impact forces (something spinning at 15,000+ rpm coming to a sudden stop or hitting adjacent structure/components) rather than thermal degradation (fire).
Fourth, the comment that some accidents that involved aircraft impacting mountains and having large portions of the fuselage intact as a comparison is incomplete. The angle of impact needs to be taken into consideration in addition to impact speed. One instance comes to mind is a Korean 747 that ran into a mountain on Guam where the fuselage was intact. This was a controlled flight into terrain, on approach for landing at less than 200 mph……nothing like a semi controlled dive into the ground.
Anyway I just thought I’d chime in.
First, I wouldn’t assume the bulk of the fuselage and wings “vaporized” on impact as much as they were consumed during the post crash fire. I’ll have to watch that video again.
Second, think of the fuselage of the 757 as a soda can getting squished at impact, the size of the resulting debris field will reflect this.
Third, the reason there is not more engine debis that is larger is that most of the components were most likely destroyed due to impact forces (something spinning at 15,000+ rpm coming to a sudden stop or hitting adjacent structure/components) rather than thermal degradation (fire).
Fourth, the comment that some accidents that involved aircraft impacting mountains and having large portions of the fuselage intact as a comparison is incomplete. The angle of impact needs to be taken into consideration in addition to impact speed. One instance comes to mind is a Korean 747 that ran into a mountain on Guam where the fuselage was intact. This was a controlled flight into terrain, on approach for landing at less than 200 mph……nothing like a semi controlled dive into the ground.
Anyway I just thought I’d chime in.
Nasa did it in the late 80's as well to test crashworthyness of various seating positions on a 707.fluff said:
You know, I meant to type NASA, but I left my tin-foil hat off and they made me type CIA.Andyman_1970 said:
Of course it's doable and has been done.....but in the desert. If you're off 10 or 20 feet in one direction or another, who cares? This would be a one shot deal, failure not an option, "Red Leader, stay on target" kinda stuff.
All I'm saying is that if I were in charge of a dastardly plot to fake a terrorist attack on my own people, then I would not use a remotely controlled plane. For my tastes, there would be too many uncotrollable variables that could make the whole thing go terribly wrong.
For me, I'd use the cruise missile, call it a plane. Dismiss those who contradict the official version as "crackpot conspriacy theorists", do lots of hand waving and distraction. Eventually people would forget and go back to watching Survivor and American Idol. Seems way easier, and less risky to me.
And I agree with basically everything Andy said. The fuse is a soda can. And yes it should disintigrate. But as far as it being consumed by the fire? Ok....say it all melts. (even though the fire wouldn't be THAT hot.....a puddle of jet fuel on the ground at atmosphere would not burn as hot as it it will in and engine all atomized and in highly compressed air)...... But the melted Al, would solidify again....Was that stuff recovered? Like they always said on Beekman's world: "Everything goes somewhere!"
All I'm saying is that if I were in charge of a dastardly plot to fake a terrorist attack on my own people, then I would not use a remotely controlled plane. For my tastes, there would be too many uncotrollable variables that could make the whole thing go terribly wrong.
For me, I'd use the cruise missile, call it a plane. Dismiss those who contradict the official version as "crackpot conspriacy theorists", do lots of hand waving and distraction. Eventually people would forget and go back to watching Survivor and American Idol. Seems way easier, and less risky to me.
And I agree with basically everything Andy said. The fuse is a soda can. And yes it should disintigrate. But as far as it being consumed by the fire? Ok....say it all melts. (even though the fire wouldn't be THAT hot.....a puddle of jet fuel on the ground at atmosphere would not burn as hot as it it will in and engine all atomized and in highly compressed air)...... But the melted Al, would solidify again....Was that stuff recovered? Like they always said on Beekman's world: "Everything goes somewhere!"
Have you ever put a soda can in a campfire? Where does it go?MMike said:
I can honestly say that I have not.....I guess I have a project for the weekend.Andyman_1970 said:
After some more thought, I'm having an easier time with the lack of wreckage. The thing that still puzzles me is level of damage to the building. The hole still seems too small, and the intact windows....still seems weird. I mean, mass is mass.... it's gonna do some damage. The engines would shatter, but it should still scar the building...(more than it did)..
Scale dude, scale. If the Soda can was the plane then the entire wing of the Pentagon would have needed to be a long lasting inferno. As we saw, the fie was shortlived and extremely local. Even office equipment on the very edge of the zone of destruction was unscathed.Andyman_1970 said:
Remember the forumla for kinetic engergy? You half the mass and square the velocity. You're also dealing with a somewhat delicate aluminum structure with a smaller structural "margin" than a building............using a 150% safety margin (which is what commercial air planes have) on a building would get you fired as an engineer approving building structure.
It doesn't take long for a soda can to disappear.........and aircraft structure, esspecially the skin is surprisingly thin anywhere from 0.032 to 0.040 thick.Changleen said:
I agree with all of that. But what about the windows? I know they are not Home Depot issue windows....likely bullet-proof. But still.....Andyman_1970 said:
I'm not familiar with their construction so I can't comment on that aspect, but if it was a goverment project then there was a specific specification they had to be built to.MMike said:
The thinnest I ever saw on the skin of a 767 was more in the order of .06. I only ever saw disconnect brkts and stuff that thin.... (but still.....not very thick)Andyman_1970 said:
Floor beams and stringers though defintely have some heft to them...
I would be surprised if all the skin on a 757 was 0.06, the skin is typically thinner at the forward end of the fuselage, and then thicker at the wing attach area and tail section.MMike said:
Wing spars would also be very beefy.MMike said: