T Nation

Anyone Seen This?

I was at my sisters this weekend and she showed me some conspiracy theory type website dealing with the 9/11 plane that flew into the pentagon. There were “supposed” photos of the crash site just minutes after the crash and there was no airplane fuselodge or any visible aircraft debris. There were also numerous quotes from eyewitness who supposedly saw a leer jet typ plane flying low and fast and emit some type of beam weapon on the pentagon. I was going to try and find the site and write down all the names that were quoted and try to do some research on it myself. All the photos could easily have been photoshopped. The sad thing is my sister totally believed it without checking any of the references or names used. she just believed it as fact. … Sad

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

I found the link. Anyone else care to check sources n such with me. I will do my best but I’m sure either lumpy or BB are better source checkers than I am.

http://www.scam.com/images/pentagon.swf

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

I found several photos that may refute the fact that the vidoe claims there is no airplane wreckage at the site. Here are two hi res photos showing otherwise.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/high/va_pentagon_0901_135.jpg

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jpg

Already I think what I feared, Bullshit photoshop. I’ll continue to check into it more.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Another link to a site refuting the conspiracy theory. This one seems pretty in depth and adequate. Goes into much more detail than the video does and gives links and sources for a lot of the info.

My sister hates George Bush but it is mostly from crap like this that she does no research on. It only took my about an hour this morning to gather enough credible evidence that it was a hoax. It is amazing what one will accept as fact when it coincides with thier core political or ideological beliefs.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Vegita:

It could have been the work of aliens…You never know. (sorry I had to)

I know someone who personally saw the plane hit the pentagon - that’s enough for me. Not to mention the scores of other eyewitnesses. This was in broad daylight in the morning. The pentagon is clearly visible from many directions. First of all, if you buy into the fact that the gov’t would attack its own military hq, do you think the government would try out an experimental weapon like this in broad daylight?
A leer jet emitting a beam??? are you kidding me? Some people are utterly hopeless.

Vegita:
Check my “911 -Time to make you think” post.

I’ve researched this subject quite extensively for more than a year now. It’s not a hoax.

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=24E2691D674103EFE7070BCFA408E125.ba13-1?id=496658

I would more readily believe an alien conspiracy than our own government doing this.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Veg –

It doesn’t hold up to the common-sense test, and if you look on snopes.com or urbanlegend.com there are some good debunks.

However, just think about it for a moment. The Pentagon is a major parking lot for a main subway stop on the DC Metro. It is also a major bus stop for people coming to and going from the Metro stop. I take the bus to that stop every day, and at any given time at the peak of the commute, which is the time Flight 77 crashed, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside in close proximity to the Pentagon.

It is also across the freeway from Crystal City and a myriad of high rise apartment buildings and hotels. And, of course, there are all those people on the 395 driving by at approximately 15 mph during the heavy morning commute. And yet somehow, save for a few folks quoted on the conspiracy sites, the eyewitnesses say that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

The other reality check is that the people on Flight 77 are dead, and the people working in the Pentagon where Flight 77 crashed are dead, and there’s no explanation of what happened to Flight 77, and, as far as I know, none for why the people in the Pentagon died. This stuff got started by some kooky French author, and the fact that we don’t have, and won’t have, 100% of the facts just fuels the fire.

Anyway, I don’t want to get JusttheFacts started again, so go ahead and read his thread and look at his links. Evaluate the sources, apply common sense, and see where you come out.

It’s not like it hasn’t been planned before…

You can download the PDF of the declassified government document of “Operation Northwoods” here at the National Security Archive site.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Operation Northwoods
Pretexts for Cuban Invasion 1962
This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It could have been the work of aliens…You never know.[/quote]

Why do you say that? Was there evidence of anal probing?

justthefatcs, Your other thread on this topic does nothing to prove this is not a hoax. It simply refers to a whole buch of crap that is not credible and is all easily made up, photoshopped, or otherwise concoted. It appears you don’t believe the pictures at the links I posted above. I also have a very good education and intrest in science and physics. The damage at the pentagon makes sense for a large airplane strike. Saying there was no ground damage on the lawn is stupid. If a plane came in that fast at that angle that it would have had to to damage cars on the road before the pentagon, it would have skipped into the building. If you look at any crash site of any other large plane with a similar entry angle. You will notice that the majority of ground damage is caused by the plane as it is near the end of its skid. This is where the wieght of the fuselodge actually begins to dig into the ground. This is similar to why a ball when thrown straight out will fall when it slows down. Horizontal projection or moving speed perpindicular to gravity essentially negates the effect of gravity on the object. When the object slows gravity regains it’s grip on the object and again begins pulling it ever harder into the ground. Now if air can cause enough resistance to say a football thrown at 35 mph to keep it in the air for 40 yards, how hard is it for the ground to keep a 500 mph plane from digging into the ground. The outer walls of the pentagon took a majority of the energy from the impact and thus there was no sizable crater either before or after it hit the first wall.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Whatever you do, don’t elect people for whom the ends justifies the means… or you never know just how far they will go to achieve their objectives.

At any rate, I’m not claiming I believe any conspiracy theories, don’t be branding me with that iron.

I have to say that I agree with BB’s “common sense” argument.

WWhat is the best way to discredit any position?

Instead of attacking it head on with actual facts (hell that might not work) you could always try to discredit it by making the position so extreme and so wild and stupid that no one sane would believe in it.

Now just a hypothetical, what Michael Moore dealt with, I am not saying it has any merit just an example. To let Bin Larden?s relatives fly out of the US right after 9/11 while the rest of the airspace was looked down was well weird. Maybe people are right to question this? Now if you put out disinformation about people questioning if laser beams, remote controlled leer jets, ect were involved and other stupid things that not one sane would lend their name to it also stops people questioning things like the Bin Larden?s relatives special flights for fear of being associated with laser beams, remote controlled leer jets ect.

It’s a pretty wild and weird theory, but not as weird and wild as Vegita’s theory that in 2012 there will be a massive world war that wipes out most of earth’s population, leading to one world government and an age of enlightenment featuring new additional human powers. George Bush plays a key role in bringing us to that point, followed by president Hillary Clinton.

If I’m forgetting any pertinent details, Vegita, feel free to fill them in. It’s fairly complex and I forgot some of the finer points.

As far as weird conspiracies and far-out beliefs, you are hardly one to point the finger.

Hey Lumpy, haven’t you ever eaten mushrooms? Geez, lighten up.

Thanks Loth, :wink:

Lumpy while I may on occasion state some future possibilities based on what I percieve the flow of events right now might lead to. Plus maybe a few extras that will be cool and make the read better. Who really Cares. It’s mostly just fantasy fun time.

People coming up with these nice little videos that look real good and can really affect a poor sob like my sister and how she views the world. Mind control at its best.

I have done further research on damage from a missile strike and quite frankly it is hilarious that anyone would think a missle did this damage. Missiles are designed to hit the outside of somwething and blow up foward into their target. If a missile had hit the pentagon the damage triangle created would be the opposite of what it was. The plane strike created a damage triangle which started out wide and diminished as the energy of the fuel and disintigration of the plane dwindled. A missile would have left a smaller initial hole in the outer wall and much greater damage the further it went into the building, much like the spread of birdshot separating.

If anyone has any doubts about this just do a google search on missle damage tests and you will get all the data you need to make your own conclusion.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

I’ll even be the first one to put it up : )

It’s seems to be an awfully long article, it must be making some people a little nervous…how dare people ask questions.

Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet

By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2004

Working from his home office in a small town in England, Darren Williams spent four weeks this summer making a short but startling video that raises novel questions about the 2001 attack on the Pentagon.

The video, “9/11: Pentagon Strike,” suggests that it was not American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon, but a missile or a small plane.

With rock music as a backdrop, the video offers flashes of photographs taken shortly after impact, interspersed with witness accounts. The pictures seem incompatible with damage caused by a jumbo jet, and no one mentions seeing one. Red arrows point to unbroken windows in the burning building. Firefighters stand outside a perfectly round hole in a Pentagon wall where the Boeing 757 punched through; it is less than 20 feet in diameter.

Propelled by word of mouth, Internet search engines and e-mail, the video has been downloaded by millions of people around the world…

[quote]Vegita wrote:
This is similar to why a ball when thrown straight out will fall when it slows down. Horizontal projection or moving speed perpindicular to gravity essentially negates the effect of gravity on the object. When the object slows gravity regains it’s grip on the object and again begins pulling it ever harder into the ground.[/quote]

Not sure what you meant by this statement, but the words as written are not at all true. Gravity will pull an object towards the Earth with the same force regardless of how fast it is moving “horizontally” absent other forces. Gravity doesn’t “lose its grip” on objects because of horizontal projection. Hold a gun in your left hand and a bullet in your right hand, both 1 meter above the ground. Fire the gun in your left hand at the same moment you drop the bullet in your right hand. Both will hit the ground at the same time, regardless of the fact the the fired bullet has far more velocity than the dropped bullet. What school did you attend that taught this bizarre brand of Newtonian Physics?