GunnSlinger
Delta
I am going to kill you. Very slowly.
Posts: 188
|
Post by GunnSlinger on Oct 16, 2004 1:55:23 GMT -5
For the explanation, watch this.Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Infested Manae on Oct 16, 2004 6:26:35 GMT -5
Some pretty striking evidence, isn't it? If it's true, which is pretty certainable, you need to wonder what they're trying to hide. That people have smuggled shoulder missiles into the country?
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 16, 2004 9:05:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mega Raptor on Oct 16, 2004 13:00:02 GMT -5
It's not so much that it 'disintegrated' so much as it didn't cause nearly as much damage as a 757 Passenger Airline would have.
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Oct 16, 2004 13:10:40 GMT -5
A 757 would cause more damage, plus I don't think that they'd use the same material on the Pentagon as a nuclear power plant... It's really friggin' weird.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 16, 2004 14:33:25 GMT -5
The pentagon was not made to be a permanent base, it was built only as a temporary hq right before WWII. The military was never moved from it. HOWEVER, the area they hit was the newly redone part which was reinforced. I had a relative that was there when it happened and there are widows from the people on that plane. I think this is probably pretty much bullshit. There is a probability the plane exploded and was incinerated. And a missile and a jet liner from close range don't sound that different. A shoulder fire missile would have only dented the front. To do something on the scale of damage that would be you'd need a serious warhead. As for the area collapsing after the explosion that is because they had huge fires, a lot of storage records were kept there which made good kindle.
|
|
|
Post by Wag - Now And Forever on Oct 16, 2004 15:58:56 GMT -5
A jet like that moving at the speeds it did would disintigrate - just look at the other flight that got driven straight into the ground, there was virtually no parts left whatsoever, and that was in the middle of a field where there was nothing to burn but short grass. In the pentagon, however, there was alot more to catch fire, so the flames probably burned faster and stronger, which contributed to the lack of evidence. The 180+ octane fuel inside burns hot enough to melt steel, aluminum, fiberglass - everything the plane is made of. Try putting some in your car sometime if you have an older carburated engine. I promise it will go REALLY fast.
Once.
Regardless, even if it wasn't the 757, what could it have been? Why would the government cover it up? Why isn't the Pentagon designed to repel such attacks? Sure, some of the evidence is compelling (and the music is good too), but still...what's the motive?
|
|
GunnSlinger
Delta
I am going to kill you. Very slowly.
Posts: 188
|
Post by GunnSlinger on Oct 16, 2004 18:44:54 GMT -5
I agree with the possibility of the 757 simply burning up after impact.
What baffled me isn't the eyewitness accounts talking about the different sounds, or the lack of severe ground damage. What bothers me, is the lack of footage.
The confiscated videotapes of the crash. We have... somewhere around 50-60 videotapes of the World Trade Center being blown appart. Each plane hitting, and the entire thing coming down. I remember waking up early in the morning to head off to my Freshman World History class, and seeing people jumping from the upper windows of the Trade Center. The thing is, we still HAVE that footage.
Whatever was on the footage of the crash at the pentagon was different. I can only think of two immediate reasons for this.
One, what hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, but rather something more dangerous, like a missile.
Two, the crash itself opened up a portion of the Pentagon that contained something that needed to be kept secret by our government.
Now, moving onto the physical evidence.
Yes, it's entirely possible for the plane to have dissintegrated or burned up after impact. But where are the wings? Someone show me where those wings hit on that building. Because they would have torn strait off considering the damage the body of the plane did to the building. The tail would have been ripped clean off, too. I didn't see an impact of that anywhere on the building either.
Most comercial aircraft have strait fixed wings. The only aircraft I can think of that doesn't are military. F-14, F-16, for instance, but they couldn't have caused that kind of damage.
In the end, I think those cameras really did see something that the government didn't want the public to see. What they saw, however, I can only speculate about.
|
|
|
Post by Wag - Now And Forever on Oct 17, 2004 13:32:45 GMT -5
Since the wings have the fuel in them, I'd assume they'd be one of the first things to go when the tanks ignighted.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 17, 2004 14:03:38 GMT -5
F-16's have fixed wings...
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Oct 17, 2004 14:11:09 GMT -5
About damage, keep in mind that the WTC would have stayed actually up and not have collapsed with different material when constructed. The metal essentially melted in the thing, since the coating that would have prevented that is deemed somewhat enviromentally unfriendly, thus some groups stop it from being used in some buildings. Seriously, there would have been a third of the deaths or something of the like if the coating had been used. Not a hit at the policy, just saying that planes can do damage but it isn't as bad as some might take it.
Personally, I think that the fact is that a plane just hit the Pentagon, and caught everyone off guard to the pointt hat nobody taped it. Totally unexpected. And I have to though wonder that the lack of reference to it in place of the WTC (possible of the less ammount of deaths could attribute to that) that there might have been something there not wanting to be mentioned. Though that is a give a way really with the Pentagon, there is likely tons of confedential stuff (not zomg superweapons! aliens!) but just in the way of sensitive information/ items not wanting to be released.
Who really knows. *shrug* Doesn't overly matter much, really.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Oct 17, 2004 14:19:53 GMT -5
Let's see, this video was made by people with too much time on their hands. Also, how did they get the footage from the Pentagon's security cameras? Considering that the Pentagon is the Military Headquarters, wouldn't it be violating the law to obtain footage from there? And if so, there is a breach of security there if someone could get ahold of security camera footage.
|
|
GunnSlinger
Delta
I am going to kill you. Very slowly.
Posts: 188
|
Post by GunnSlinger on Oct 17, 2004 21:34:39 GMT -5
Let's see, this video was made by people with too much time on their hands. Also, how did they get the footage from the Pentagon's security cameras? Considering that the Pentagon is the Military Headquarters, wouldn't it be violating the law to obtain footage from there? And if so, there is a breach of security there if someone could get ahold of security camera footage. Seen it broadcast on TV a thousand times. Anybody with a VCR would have a copy of those 6 seconds of footage.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 18, 2004 10:47:16 GMT -5
I believe they said it was a nearby gas station that had the security footage. I think the whole thing is still bullshit though.
I'm not going to watch it again cause it pissed me off so much. But did they address at all what happened to the occupants of the airliner which they claim didn't crash into the Pentagon. Were they abducted by UFO's or what.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Oct 18, 2004 10:50:20 GMT -5
I'm not going to watch it again cause it pissed me off so much. But did they address at all what happened to the occupants of the airliner which they claim didn't crash into the Pentagon. Were they abducted by UFO's or what. No, the government took them to Area 51 so that no one could ever hear from them again.
|
|