Way OT: Has anyone else seen this website?

Whistle
21

As far as I can see from a brief examination there seems to be much speculation in the States about whether the Pentagon was hit by a passenger jet or not.

The capacity for people to be tricked by a combination of a slick presentation and mild paranoia will never cease to amaze and sadden me.

There are people in this world who are firmly convinced that the Holocaust did not happen. They believe this because they have ‘read a book’, ‘seen a TV programme’ or ‘viewed a website’.

As I sit here, I cannot help feeling how insulted and betrayed I would be if I had lost a loved one on that airliner.

22

I admire conspiracy theorists who don’t actually propose conspiracy theories. It’s nice to have some questions raised without the talk of alien spacecraft.

23

Well… gee… thanks guys… that’s gonna do my digestion and sleep a lot of good for a while, LOL

You know the problem with arguing against conspiracy theories is that it ignores the actual existance of conspiracies… which have this nasty habit of being like the Emperor… many see the clothes they are told to see… only a very few will even allow themselves to think that the Emperor might actually be naked… and still the Emperor!

24

PS… if the story about the plane being totally destroyed in the burn inside the Pentagon were even remotely possible, especially since the plane obviously didn’t all enter the building, then how do you explain the fact that they were able to identify rmains?.. anything that will totally consume that huge a plane in that small a time and place isn’t going to leave much human organic matter intact for identification, is it?

No matter how I look at this it gives me a stomach ache, and a despair for this nation… someones in high places sure as heck doesn’t trust the citizenry with the truth.

edited for spelling, at least once - I do know the difference between a plain and a plane - really I do.

25

First of all…

That whole “where’s the plane?” argument: where are the planes from the WTC towers? We saw them crash into the buildings, where did they go?

We naturally have this intuitive feeling that since a plane is a big solid object, it should be left behind after a collision (if not in a zillion pieces.) But an airliner is leightweight, mostly hollow, filled with fuel and travels at a high speed. If it hits something, you won’t see much left.

Next…

In order for the wings to FOLD UP they would have to hit the building first…

Why would that be true? Of course they don’t have to hit the building first to fold up. The wings aren’t that strong, and they will shear, fold, rip, etc. in that kind of scenario.

The kinetic energy released by an 80 aircraft traveling at 560 mph is in the neighborhood of 25,088,000,000 psi. 25 BILLION pounds per square inch is a whole lot of force [EK=1/2(mass)x(velocity squared).

You just computed (1/2)(80 tons)(560mph)^2 to get that number. That’s not pressure, that’s kinetic energy, expressed in pound-miles^2/hr^2.

Right away you should know that the math is wrong because pressure is in units of pounds/inch^2. It doesn’t even match units, and the units are off anyway, miles over inches.

Finally…

As for the whole “that force should put a bullet through titanium” argument, whether you create a hole is a matter of how localized the force is, and how well the projectile holds up rather than shredding itself. If the energy obliterates the plane, that’s energy that isn’t making a hole.

If you don’t believe me, try dropping (a) a water balloon, and (b) a steel ball of equal mass off a tall building. They have the same kinetic energy, and by the above argument a water-balloon should be able to punch a hole in a roof.

Caj

26

Let me add…

You need to understand that the people who write this consipracy stuff are deliberately trying to make you think a certain thing, and they will try to use numbers to pull a fast one.

Remember, they are trying to deny an event that has numerous eyewitnesses on the nearby parkway, including people on the plane itself who called the ground before the crash. That’s an uphill battle for the conspiracy theorists, and they know they have to fudge some things to sound even remotely convincing.

And Happyturkeyman(niepie):

I admire conspiracy theorists who don’t actually propose conspiracy theories. It’s nice to have some questions raised without the talk of alien spacecraft.

They don’t propose a theory because there is no sane theory to propose. All they can do is suggest that something different happened, but if you ask what, conspiracy theorists become evasive. The alternative theory sounds too daffy to say out loud.

The prevailing theory among these people is that (a) the real plane buzzed the Pentagon and landed at Reagan airport, to make it “look” like a crash; then (b) a missile hit where the plane was supposed to land; then (c) the passengers were killed and plane wreckage placed on the scene. Also (d) phone calls from the passengers on the plane were faked.

Again, sort of loopy. All that work to fake a plane crash, when “they” could have just crashed the dang plane? And why would anyone conspire to add a plane to the real 9/11 attacks—just in case the WTC attack wasn’t enough to make the news?!?

The scary part is that conspiracy theorists can’t deny two other planes hit WTC—but THAT’S WHERE THEY’RE GOING WITH THIS. Sooner or later, they will become bold enough to make eerie videos suggesting that planes never hit the WTC towers either.

Caj

27

Looking at the WTC towers, you can see the pretty exact outline of the planes in the holes in the buildings.

Looking at the Pentagon, which even if you accept the re-enforcing as reason, shows nowhere near that, and no debris like might still be expected …

I am not totally pooh-poohing the Pentagon story, but I cannot totally ignore the questions raised either. There are just too many of them that don’t fit the ‘pat’ answers.

I am concerned with just where the plane that was supposed to not have crashed into the Pentagon is supposed to be/have ended up. That would be interesting to hear.

28

Well, except for the fact that there were pieces of plane as well. There is photographic evidence, and the black box was also found. But I suppose none of that counts :wink:

Photo of main landing gear debris

Misc aircraft wreckage

Part of the fuselage that came through a hole (look for the green anti-corrosion coated pieces broken up and scattered about)

Landing gear strut

I guess this might be a piece of a..hmm.airplane perhaps?

wait for it..yes! Plane debris!..this time, a large section of one of the turbine engines.

Part of a rotor

Could it be? Yes..it’s more plane debris

I found even more pics on various Geocities sites, but haven’t linked them because geocities cites tend to go down in a heartbeat, making them totally unreliable.

I also found numerous pictures of less-obvious minor debris (electronics, scraps and stuff), so haven’t posted those. I find the above pictures compelling enough.

This took me all of about 5 minutes to find via Google. Anyone could have done the same.

29

And the movie scripts screened as evidence pass so fast they cannot be read so an audience has no time to get the message. Very amateur.

Besides the wings carry a large ammount of fuel, so on impact they would A fold backwards then disintegrate. Also the contents of the cabin on initial imact would shoot forwards, nothing to restrain such in a high force incident, and B fill the space available; next then, that projctile now burning and exploding creates the impact.

30

I’ve just spent an informative 1/2 hour or so looking at various ‘9/11-What really happened’ sites. To highlight some of the gems:

All four planes were empty of passengers & remotely controlled.

The WTC planes were disguised military aircraft that fired missiles into the towers before impact.

Terrorists (disguised as firemen) planted bombs in the WTC during the attack that caused the towers to collapse.

They go on and on, needless to say all the stories are backed up by ‘eye-witness accounts’ and/or ‘video footage’

The conspiracy theory culture is something I do not have a lot of experiance of - it is rare in the UK - and I struggle to see how any free-thinking individual can give these stories any credence, but obviously some of you do!

But (to go back to the origional thread) if any of you are wondering if there were any passengers on flight 77, ask these two:

‘Stephen Push, whose wife died on the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon, said he had been robbed of the “best” half of her life.
He told the five judges he would lie awake at night wondering how his wife had suffered, whether she had been killed quickly by attackers sitting next to her or had time to take in her imminent death.’

“I was overwhelmed by the unbelievable courage of the passengers and crews of all four of the flights,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Capt. Charles Burlingame, was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. “I sat there wistfully wishing that this country could be as united and as determined and as brave in fighting the terrorists that they were in the first few minutes of Sept. 11,”

31

I went through the Flash file posted in the first article again, and I have a few more nit-picks.

First, I must admit I’m naturally biased against anything with Unsolved-Mysteries-style evil music and special effects. But let’s look past that:

  • The video tells us that other cameras caught the plane on film, but film was confiscated by the FBI as part of their investigation. Is that unusual? The language suggests the FBI was trying to hide something rather than gathering evidence. And “the footage was never released.” What do they mean by that? Was there a FOIA request?

After the Murrah Federal building bombing, the FBI confiscated store security camera footage from all over Oklahoma City, to track what cars where where at what times. Was the footage ever “released?” Is it supposed to be released? It’s not like the FBI was making a made-for-TV movie.

  • The video asserts that the amateur pilot/terrorist couldn’t have performed such an aerobatic miracle, with the plane going so fast just a few feet off the ground—before it hit. (It’s a wonder planes can hit the ground at all then!) But again, what about the Trade Center towers?? Amateur pilots flew planes into those buildings too—was that impossible?

Keep that in mind, because a lot of conspiracy arguments collapse for this one single reason: planes hit the WTC towers too!!

  • The video claims “plane crashes leave wreckage,” and shows stills of other plane crashes, with lots of wreckage. This is just a crazy comparison. The outcome depends on speed, just like an auto collision. In a “normal” plane crash, you have far less kinetic energy.

Imagine somebody drove a car 90mph into a brick wall. Now imagine someone looks at the wreckage and says, “this isn’t real, 'cos I’ve seen lots of pictures of car crashes, and they just result in dented fenders or crumpled hoods.”

Caj

32

How many questions have been raised? How many questions are actually raised in this video?

And how many questions really honestly fail to fit the ‘pat’ explanation? (like, “why did eyewitnesses say it sounded like a missile?” Well, because it probably did sound like a missile!! Is that supposed to be inconsistent with a plane? :roll: )

Finally, consider that a lot more people raise a lot more questions when challenging the moon landing, the Holocaust, and scientific theories that conflict with Genesis (which includes not only evolution, but also the laws of physics). We should not start disbelieving based on the number of doubters or number of questions being raised.

My favorite remark on this comes from Albert Einstein, who was the target of a campaign by pro-Aryan German scientists to prove he was wrong about relativity:

Think about Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, both Nobel laureates in physics, and champions of “Aryan science” even during the days of the middle-of-the-road, pre-Third Reich Weimar Republic of Germany. > Lenard edited a book titled 110 German Scientists Against Einstein, by which he meant, against “Jewish science,” causing Einstein to remark with a sigh, “If I had been wrong it would only have needed one.”

In other words, it didn’t matter how many people were raising how many objections. The theory of relativity has been experimentally confirmed to a ridiculous degree, and yes, we did largely ignore all these questions that all these people were raising.

Caj