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:

Quote:

---

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....

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.

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....

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

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...

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

That first link is off on some numbers, and they didn't do any facts checking.

Quote:

---

. 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.

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!!

I don't believe in this conspiracy. I saw early photos and there was plane debris in them.

I aggree, on the news report they had the plane right there basically folded together in damage. I also agree to the point that the trucks do look like toys. You also need to understand sites put like. Bin laden ww/ a penis head and it looks like it is really like that. Well, it's only an illusion caused by the site to add controversy or to just be funny. That is my opnion.

here's a debunking of a pretty similar arguement:
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

the quotes that are debunked arent exactly the same, but they are quite close to some that you see here and the basic premise is the same.

It's idiot. If this "object" was not a plane, why would others "crashing objects" of 9/11 be planes?
But they were a lot of persons to view these planes this day!

Sorry for the syntax...

This thread is interesting.. Im gonna keep my eye on it... IMO This conspiracy theory is only a theory... Why would the Pentagon cover up a bombing?

there's an old saying The Simplest Explanation is likely to be the correct one
:cool:

Quote:

---

But they were a lot of persons to view these planes this day!

---

there is nobody that has seen the plane crash into the pentagon. those people being interviewed on cnn are not ordinary people with ordinary jobs.

Okay, this is something I normally wouldn't even touch...However.....

I was stationed at Quantico Marine Corps Base for three years. I still have friends there. I was visiting them on 9/11, and we had the misfortune to be driving thru DC when it happened. Trust me when I say that I saw with my own eyes an airplane in the side of the Pentagon. It is not a sight I will ever forget. And the fact that people can be so damn stupid just pisses me off. Where does this crap come from? Can't they just leave alone the fact that people were killed in a very traumatic event that shook most of America to it's core? I try very hard not to act like I have any right to be scarred by this as I simply saw it, I didn't know anyone who was killed, I haven't lost any of my family, and I am still safe. However the fact that people can take an event that was SO painful for so many people and trivialize it infuriates me. And I am certainly not the only one in America who saw clearly an airplane in the side of the building.

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.

Conf1rm3d_K1ll, with all due respect, this is the real story. I think America had it's eyes clearly opened on 9/11.

I agree with Debwalin. When I saw that a center of our defense was attacked I believed we were at war. I can not think of any reason that the people that we elected would attempt to create a situation of war that would cause so many innocent lives to be lost. It pisses me off to even think that some one would attempt to spread such an idea. Is it because so many people are paranoid of our government? Probably so.

ccKid ::coffee::

DebWalin, I don't doubt what you saw there on that 9th of September, I only have a couple of questions/remarks...

Quote:

---

Trust me when I say that I saw with my own eyes an airplane in the side of the Pentagon. It is not a sight I will ever forget.

---

Dang Deb, I do trust you, but there's lots of pictures out there showing the Pentagon after the crash. I haven't seen a sign of a Boeing on any of those. But then again, maybe the press arrived too late.

Quote:

---

And the fact that people can be so damn stupid just pisses me off. Where does this crap come from? Can't they just leave alone the fact that people were killed in a very traumatic event that shook most of America to it's core?

---

If people'd leave alone the fact that people were killed in every traumatic event that occured, there would be no way to prevent the same thing from happening over and over again... It's not like the guys who made those sites are denying the fact that thousands of people died, they're just giving you another point of view. The first thing every investigator should do is look at ALL the possibilities, not just trust in the official explanation (If it weren't for those investigators, we'd still believe that Milli Vanilli is the real thing...). Besides, we're talking about the explanation from a guy who waved at Stevie Wonder during the artist's concert last month...

Quote:

---

However the fact that people can take an event that was SO painful for so many people and trivialize it infuriates me. And I am certainly not the only one in America who saw clearly an airplane in the side of the building.

---

I don't think the makers of those sites are 'trivializing' what happened. Again, they're not denying the deaths of thousands of people. Here's an interesting read about the conspiracy theories. In short:

Bush:

1. Islamic terrorists based in Afghanistan who hate American freedom plotted and executed an attack on America - an attack which the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of nor any connection to (this is an official statement).
2. In order to wage and win a war on terrorism we must invade Afghanistan and every other nation harboring, funding or otherwise supporting terrorists and that a simultaneous suspension of domestic civil liberties is necessary for internal security (this is an official statement).
3. [The American] government is all good while theirs is the very personification of evil, the "evil-doers" as President Bush likes to call them .


http://www.baltech.org/lederman/bush...01.html#Globe1

1. The attack was known about (and possibly, planned) by various elements of the U.S. government before 9/11 and was allowed to take place in order to bring about certain conditions, including the suspension of our guaranteed civil liberties (just a theory).
2. Even if bin Laden and the al Queda network based in Afghanistan were immediately responsible for the attack that those supporting, funding and protecting them are not for the most part based in Afghanistan but are in fact closely connected to the Bush administration and to the allies President Bush has taken such efforts to rally to our side ([i]a fact).
3. A U.S. built oil pipeline through Afghanistan which has been in the planning stages for more than a decade is the real goal of the war and that a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was in the works long before September 11th (a fact ).

THIS is what it's all about; not just whether a Boeing crashed into the Pentagon or not...

Quote:

---

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.

---

Indeed...
Trust and you'll be trusted, says the liar to the fool...

Here's some more interesting links:

9 Unpopular Ideas on 9/11

The Bush - Bin Laden connection, By Leslie Wayne, The New York Times.

The Bush - Bin Laden connection by Michael Moran, MSNBC.

President’s oil companies funded by Bin Laden family and wealthy Saudis who financed Osama bin Laden. , by Rick Wiles, American Freedom News.

Bush & The Hitler Project.

And you wonder why some people are paranoid?

And I thought I smoked allot. I want some of whatever you've been getting, sounds prety strong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative

And you wonder why some people are paranoid? [/B]

---

There's a thin line between "paranoid" and "NAIVE"
Of all people on this forum, I am more deeply
distrustful of government than any other, but I don't
let that distrust drive me to the opposite extreme
of trusting every con artist who wants to sell
another book on his pet conspiracy:

• Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealer
• Clinton killed Nicole
• International capitalists created Communism
• They're all in on it!

It was inevitable that a conspiracy theory would spring up. But I think this one is a little too far fetched.