New 9/11 conspiracy-theory
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: New 9/11 conspiracy-theory

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Post New 9/11 conspiracy-theory

    The last couple of days, a new 9/11 conspiracy-theory emerged on the net ( http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings...t.htm#Part%20I, http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...ne/erreurs.htm and http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...gone/index.htm ), stating that not a Boeing 757 from American Airlines, but another 'flying object' (an F-16? SuperMan? A truck loaded with explosive?) penetrated the Pentagon. It's an interesting read, but what I found more entertaining, was their 'conspiracy theory'-reasoning:

    http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings...t.htm#Part%20I
    The term "conspiracy theory" consists of two words, the active word being "theory". By definition, a theory is a concept, an idea, a proposal, a supposition. Example: "In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket, I could win the prize." However, once the first ticket is purchased, winning is no longer a theory, but rather a possibility. The more tickets that are purchased, the more possible and eventually probable the win becomes. The same can be said about a conspiracy theory. As long as there is no evidence to support the conspiracy theory, it remains a theory. Once however there is one piece of evidence to support the theory, no matter how flimsy or circumstantial it may be, the conspiracy is no longer a theory, but a possibility! And the more evidence there is that is gathered, the more possible and eventually probable the conspiracy becomes.
    Now THAT's what I call a conspiracy....

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    Neg - I like your sig. 911 has many c -theories but still the facts we know are all there is as yet. I'm concerned about Europe now that they EU prez is getting involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    376
    What I love about these theories is how many people would have to be involved in the cover up. As I was at the Pentagon during the clean up I guess that includes me now...

    So as offical spokes entity for the conspiracy, we deny all....
    - Jimmy Mac

    Replicants are like any technology, if there not a hazard, its not my problem....

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    681
    well... whether this is true or a cover up... it brings up some really interesting/viable points. and sadly you never know what could have happened, unless you were there... definitely interesting stuff... nice post negative
    Learn like you are going to live forever, live like you are going to die tomorrow.

    Propoganda

  5. #5
    The pictures do make for an interesting argument. If a boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon there seems to be very little evidence to support that theory. Where's all the wreckage?


    Here's a cut and paste from one of the sites...
    Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?


    Good point. Not to mention the speed it would have been travelling at on it's descent..


    Anyway, we'll never know the real story. It's good to see people questioning what the media spoon feeds us...Open your eyes people.

  6. #6
    Flash M0nkey
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,447
    Anyone else notice that in the first link negative posted the third pic down looks like all the firetrucks etc are toys? I dunno they just seem to bright kinda false....anyone else think theres something weird with it?

    Apart form that tis a scary proposal - would the american goverment kill so many people just to be able to begin a war on terrorism and take away people's rights?

    v_Ln

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    452
    Actually, I don't see the problem. The wreckage would not be clearly visible among the other debris, nor would it be in large pieces, due to the impact speed. And the damaged area does look smallish in my uninformed opinion, but so did the areas on the WTC.
    Elen alcarin ar gwath halla ná engwar.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    That first link is off on some numbers, and they didn't do any facts checking.

    . Notice the size of the demolished area. The Pentagon is four stories high, and if each story is 10-12ft in height, and the added height for the roof area is another 10ft., the total height of the building would be approximately 58ft. The width of the hole according to this and other photos would be about 60-65ft.
    According to http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html (a site I found after a quick search at google for size of pentagon), the height of the building is 77ft, not 58. That's a large discrepancy. Also, their calculations on the image are off by six feet (an allowable margin, but they should provice a higher-resolution image, IMO).

    Width of the side of the Pentagon in picture: 166 Pixels
    Width of the side of the Pentagon in reality: 941 feet
    Width Ratio: 5.6686746987951807228915662650602 ft / pixel
    Width of the 757 in picture: 23 pixels
    Width of the 757 in reality: 124 feet
    Width of the 757 According to picture: 130.38 feet (rounded to two decimals)
    Width Ratio (should match above): 5.3913043478260869565217391304348

    They also do not take into account the fact that Jets store all their fuel in their wings. Many many plane crashes do not involve having the wings as even remotely identifiable, as they are incinerated in the blast of all the jet fuel exploding. If you watch the planes crashing into the WTC, the wings themselves only break windows and do some minor structural damage, but then break and spill the fuel into the buildings.

    Anyways, some other statistics about the Pentagon (from the site mentioned above):
    Prime contract awarded 11 August 1941
    Mechanical engineering contract awarded 3 September 1941
    Construction began 11 September 1941 (Coincidence, or planning by the terrorists?)
    Grading contract awarded 24 September 1941
    First occupants move in 29 April 1942
    Construction completed 15 January 1943
    Total Land Area (acres) 583
    Government Owned (acres) 296
    Purchased or condemned (acres) 287
    Cost $2,245,000
    Area covered by Pentagon bldg (acres) 29
    Area of center court (acres) 5
    Area of heating and refrigeration plant (acres) 1
    Area of sewage structures (acres) 1
    Access highways built (miles) 30
    Overpasses and bridges built 21
    Parking space (acres) 67
    Capacity (vehicles) 8,770
    Cost of building $49,600,000
    Total cost of project (including outside facilities) $83,000,000
    Gross floor area (sq. ft.) 6,636,360
    Net space for offices, concessions and storage (sq. ft.) 3,705,793
    Cubic contents (cu. ft.) 77,015,000
    Length of each outer wall (ft.) 921
    Height of building (ft.) 77' 3.5"
    Number of floors, plus mezzanine and basement 5
    Total length of corridors (miles) 17.5

    It's a large building, so I don't see why it's so unbelievable to conceive that it was a 757 that crashed into it. Especially considering the damage which is visible to the ground just in front of the building on that same image. I think what happened is that the plane hit the ground before the building, blowing up the fuel prematurely, and thus only damaging the outside of the building, while the passenger compartment careened into the building itself. This explains the fact that the hole is only roughly 75-80 feet wide, and why there is so much damage down the whole wall of the building (the burning jet fuel would have exploded blackening that whole piece of the building).

    A good counterpoint I have is that if Flight 77 (which WAS a boeing 757) didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? Why has there been no news report about Flight 77 showing up elsewhere. The media would not simply ignore that kind of thing.

    The site is great on the surface, but when you examine the facts that they intentionally leave out, it's about as solid and stable as a marshmallow building.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  9. #9
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Now they are hijacking reason. I'm not gonna go off on this but I'd have to say look at those pretty pictures. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I'd have to say that those are the wrong words.

    The simple fact that a plane that size carries that amount of fuel do you expect anything left over.

    BTW - It hit the ground first, and the Pntagon is built like a brick $hit house so I'd expect the damage to be exactly what it was.

    P.S. Yeah, I know, I'm fooling myself. PFFFT!!
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,193
    I don't believe in this conspiracy. I saw early photos and there was plane debris in them.
    Trappedagainbyperfectlogic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •