Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
nobody answered my question.

where is the 4th plane?

4th plane? Do we have any solid evidence that there was a 4th one?

[Dis]

the FAA confirmed the 4 hijackings...

there are passengers missing on the fourth plane. death notices have been issued. family members have declared their family members missing.

[Aeson]

sorry, double post

[Aeson]

I'd have to agree with everything Vel has posted here. The events of 9/11 have given the government the opportunity to act in ways that wouldn't have been acceptable before. The debate on whether this is just coincidence or if it was planned is not a bad thing, blind acceptance would be. Leaders and controlling factions of different societies have used the support of nationalism and patriotism to commit attrocities in the past, and given the chance it will continue to happen. Just because a government is "ours" doesn't mean it cannot be corrupt.

[Dis]

my post near the bottom of page 2 sums up that arugment.

there is no reason. Unless you assume all 4 hijackings are conpiracies. Then you have an argument. But why make a point that only 1 of them was a conspiracy? my post on page 2 tries to argue why they would cover up only this particular crash.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The oddest thing to me is this:

One of two things HAD to happen. Either the plane came down in the lawn in front of the building and plowed into it (which would explain impact damage on just the first floor...MAYBE) but then would have left the front lawn torn to hell and back, OR

The plane hit the building dead on....no torn up lawn, but it would have caused impact damage on more than the first floor.

-=Vel=-

No idea whatsoever about the lawn thing but an airliner impacting head on as it did could have had an effect similar to a sabot shell. Bulk of the aircraft in the fuselage which impacts over a small area. Wings impacting over a much larger area are taken off. Net result being that the main body which isn't much bigger than a floor penetrates. The Pentagon being much closer to the ground suffers much less as the load-bearing sections aren't nearly as critical as for a 200-odd storey skyscraper.
Additionally that aircraft was much closer to the ground hence couldn't travel as quickly without suffering from ground effect -related turbulence hence should have been travelling much more slowly...

[Velociryx]

Thank ya, Aeson....I dunno....I'm just....growing more alarmed by the day about the suspension of rights for our citizens, this whole homeland defense department....several nuiances of the whole thing that are being conveniently glossed over "no...no need to look into why the planes weren't shot down....even tho there was ample time to do so...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...."

There are questions.

Real, valid questions.

And they have no answers.

Further, attempts to GET at answers are being turned away in the name of national security.

That's strange to me.

Not a conspiracy theorist....just curious. Very curious and vaguely alarmed.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dissident
If the air force didn't destroy the plane, then were is it. Why are they covering it up? We know for sure the plane was hijacked. The FAA confirmed this.

...

I could see believing in pearl harbour being know of and the moon landings. Because there is motive for both of those conspiracies. But what of this one?

The fact that the plane was hijacked isn't a question. The question is who hijacked it, and for what purpose. If it wasn't flown into the Pentagon, there are a million places it could have been flown.

Motive for a proposed conspiracy like this could be many things. Who knows just where this will lead us? We have seen the destruction of a foriegn government stemmed from the events of 9/11. Would the war on the Taliban and terrorists have been supported otherwise? There is now a shadow government in place, which I admit to not knowing much about. Would the American people have supported the formation of such an organization in other circumstance? The existance of a motive isn't what makes a conspiracy theory true or not. A motive can be found for just about anything.

[Dis]

But that point isn't really valid.

Sure many things have come about because of 9/11.

But wouldn't they have come about just from the 2 attacks on the WTC alone?

yes they would have.

the attack on the Pentagon was not necessary for our desire to attack and destory the Taliban and Al Queda. The WTC destruction was all that was needed for motivation.


This is what I mean by lack of motive. Now if you were to tell me that the WTC attack was also a conspiracy then I would say then there is a motive. But the argument is using the destruction of the WTC to compare to the destruction of the Pentagon. So I'm assuming the website isn't calling the WTC a conspiracy. The website is assuming what was shown to have happened actually happened to the WTC.

So what this leaves us with is a group of people that believe only 1 of the hijackings was covered up. If the WTC attacks really did happen, that was all that was needed to piss americans off. 3000 dead etc, etc. The pentagon wasn't much of a terrorist target. We expect military casualties in war, but not civilian.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Aeson

Motive for a proposed conspiracy like this could be many things. Who knows just where this will lead us? We have seen the destruction of a foriegn government stemmed from the events of 9/11. Would the war on the Taliban and terrorists have been supported otherwise? There is now a shadow government in place, which I admit to not knowing much about. Would the American people have supported the formation of such an organization in other circumstance? The existance of a motive isn't what makes a conspiracy theory true or not. A motive can be found for just about anything.

Motives run many ways. What does the US possibly gain by the New Afghani government? Cutting off the drug trade? Taking out Osama the video-making guy? Surely if one believes the US government is responsible for such atrocities against its own people one can't expect them not to be behind that as well?
They just don't gain enough from it. Office of Homeland security is a paper tiger at the moment. No declaration of martial law dating back through 11th Sept.
The administration hasn't even begun a general mobilization and geared up the MI complex the way they did after Pearl Harbour.
The vast majority of these theories really don't make too much sense.

[Dis]

thank you

exactly

these don't make sense.

there are much better theories out there. I could believe the U.S. faked the video of Osama. I could believe the U.S. shot down the flight over Pennslyvania. But not this.

[TCO]

How could it be a conspiracy?

1. The plane IS missing.

2. The attack happened in conjunction with 3 other terrorist attacks.

Vel, you really make me wonder. Maybe you should stick to playing wargames on the computer and not analyze real world events.

[Jaguar]

Maybe it was a truck but everyone assumed it was a plane. (Were there any witnesses who saw the crash?)

But the question of where the 4th plane went then is confusing. The newspapers did seem to have an exact course the Pentagon plane took. I'm inclined to believe it was a plane still.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Dissident
I could believe the U.S. shot down the flight over Pennslyvania. But not this.

I don't even believe that. In most cases such an act might topple a government in the US but the 11th of September was "a very different day" as (I think) MtG put it.
The US government/AF could have shot it down with few repercussions even if it was later proved not to be hijacked.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by FireDragon

But the question of where the 4th plane went then is confusing. The newspapers did seem to have an exact course the Pentagon plane took. I'm inclined to believe it was a plane still.

The 4th plane was supposed to have gone down over fairly inhospitable terrain in Alabama (IIRC?). ie: few or no eyewitnesses. The Pentagon attack was in DC. ie: a whole (potential) city of witnesses.

[Aeson]

There is always the chance that someone not involved in the WTC attacks decided to use those attacks as a cover for a seperate hit on the Pentagon. Reasons for that could be various. This would probably denote previous knowlege that the WTC attacks were going to take place, as 1 hour isn't enough time to plan and organize such a thing. It is possible that this information was in the hands of someone who could act upon it in time. I would have to agree that it is much less likely that two seperate conspiracies were at work though.

The attack on the WTC was a conspiracy (ie. secret plot) or part of one. Otherwise it was just an accident. The official story is that it was an Al-Qaeda conspiracy.

[Dis]

Alabama isn't inhospitable. There are hicks living in the swamps . I won't say anything bad about that. some people like swamps.

And I do remember some eyewitness accounts of people seeing the plane come down in Washington. But of course I believe many people make up eyewitness accounts for attention. Yes I'm a distrusting MF'er.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by ravagon


The 4th plane was supposed to have gone down over fairly inhospitable terrain in Alabama (IIRC?). ie: few or no eyewitnesses. The Pentagon attack was in DC. ie: a whole (potential) city of witnesses.

I thought it was 2 planes into WTC, 1 to Pentagon, and 1 in fields of Pennsylvania

what are you guys smoking

Jon Miller

[Aeson]

I think that there is a misunderstanding of what the conspiracy explanations are getting at. It isn't that everyone is claiming that this is a conspiracy of the US government (some may be), just that there is a possibility that it could have been. At least that's my position.

I rarely accept that the carpet in my computer room is cranberry colored without wondering if somehow I could be wrong. I can look at the carpet and see it's color, an eyewitness account as it were. It makes sense to me logically that it is cranberry, that my eyes are relaying "clean" signals to my brain, but I'll never accept it as absolute truth. I also don't worry about it that much, as there is nothing I can do. I do find it interesting to debate about though.

I apply the same rational to every event in my life. Perhaps I just have too much spare time. Nothing should be taken as absolute in my estimation. The discrepancies in the photos and stories explaining 9/11 should lead to questions. Those people who won't question the official story at all are the ones who make good subjects for totalitarian regimes. By saying that, I in no way mean to imply that anyone here fits that description. The amount of questioning and debate that each of you have been through on this subject, and with what degree of certainty you hold your veiws, is beyond my speculation.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I thought it was 2 planes into WTC, 1 to Pentagon, and 1 in fields of Pennsylvania

what are you guys smoking

Jon Miller

Ok on the Pennsylvania thing (I did say IIRC? though) but I don't remember anything about a field...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Aeson
Nothing should be taken as absolute in my estimation.

Just thought I would comment on this before someone else did.

The great paradox...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


Just thought I would comment on this before someone else did.

The great paradox...

talking to yourself says something about your sanity I am sure

Jon Miller

[Aeson]

Leave my sanity (or lack thereof) out of it.

Honestly, if I was insane and said 1 + 1 = 2 does it make it false? Any idea or theory should be judged on it's own merits, not on the merits of those who propose/support it. So why should my sanity have any bearing on this discussion?

[Tingkai]

The existence of the conspiracy theory is proof that the government is trying to hide something. You see if the government does something evil, it knows that eventually some of the evidence will leak out. So to cover its trail, it deliberately publicizes a conspiracy theory so that people will automatically discount the evidence when it appears, or they will spend years talking about whether a conspiracy exists or not. And of course, the landing on the moon conspiracy and Kennedy murder conspiracy are all part of the government's conspiracy to discredit conspiracies.

[Victor Galis]

BTW, I never alleged a conspiracy of any sort. I just found this cool link in a newsgroup I read related to my college. That's all.

Now to threadjack. Some conspiracy theories generated by a conspiracy theory generator some years back (URL long lost), which I found on my computer:

"The radio in my head is telling me that the Alpha Centauri Expeditionary Force is trying to subvert the justice system for evil purposes while Charlton Heston is being persecuted by Tony Blair to draw attention away from the vile plans of the Alpha Centauri Expeditionary Force. "

"The local supermarket is a front for the evil works of the Illuminati Organisation. It's part of a national chain of illegal racketeering outlets, whose final aim is to subvert the justice system for criminal purposes. They've already claimed victims - everyone from Charlton Heston to Harry Browne have been caught out. Only Elvis has seen through the scam, which is why the FBI, in cahoots with the Illuminati Organisation, is trying to hide the evidence of CIA mind experiments with a view to putting an end to Elvis.

"Isn't it obvious that Charlton Heston has been killed by the Alpha Centauri Expeditionary Force and replaced by an agent of Saddam Hussein who has undergone extensive plastic surgery? Clearly the Alpha Centauri Expeditionary Force is planning to hide the evidence of CIA mind experiments when the agent of Saddam Hussein assassinates Harry Browne. The only solution is for Leonardo DiCaprio to stop the Alpha Centauri Expeditionary Force and Saddam Hussein, which is impossible unless Congress will pass a resolution to allow the public to own nuclear devices. "

"Isn't it obvious that Charlton Heston has been killed by the Venusian envoy and replaced by an agent of the Martian commander-in-chief who has undergone extensive plastic surgery? Clearly the Venusian envoy is planning to create a Master Race when the agent of the Martian commander-in-chief assassinates Harry Browne. The only solution is for the Vietnam Veterans Association to stop the Venusian envoy and the Martian commander-in-chief, which is impossible unless NATO will pass a resolution to allow the public to own main battle tanks. "

"Obviously Bill Clinton is carrying out a covert war against the armies of Charlton Heston in London. Very soon the KGB, who is currently only supplying weapons to Bill Clinton, will join in. Harry Browne has a number of nuclear devices hidden in the Rockies which the KGB is trying to steal to help win the war and prevent the return of the Messiah. We must help Robocop to stop them, or we are all doomed! "

[MrFun]

So much bulls**t in here, so little time. I want to try to win the Worst Bulls**ter Award, so here is something I thought of.

President Bush hired Martians to come to Earth secretly, and asked for some of them to volunteer to sacrifice themselves to destroy the World Trade Center, and try to destroy the Pentagon.

After the kamikaze Martians completed their horrible missions, President Bush cried out that the terrorists have originated from the Al-Queda. He secretly corresponded with Osama Bin-Laden and had him produce a staged "confession" on video, gloating about how his attacks were successful.

But then after the United States entered a war against the Taliban and Al-Queda in Afghanistan and after the Martians left Earth, President Bush was still not sure if his cover-up was complete.

So he has Yates go on trial and at the same time, convinced Israel to attack the Palestinian territory so that the news media cannot focus 100% of their time on the war against terror. It's all true, I tell ya.

Oh, and one more thing -- the Martians are expected to return upon President Bush's request when he wants to have the White House and the Sears Tower destroyed.

Do I get the award for dumb bulls**tting, or does someone else win??

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Hmm ... a wee bit past the six month anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, and the conspiracy theories are running amok. Can't wait to see what the conspiracy followers have cooked up by the one year anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.

Anyway, back on-topic. The part of the Pentagon that was hit by the jetliner had recently been renovated and its "innards" hardened against such an attack. Basically, the terrorists hit the one side of the five-sided Pentagon that had been structurally reinforced against a terrorist attack (although I don't think the brass had a civilian airliner in mind ... more like a bomb or missile strike of some sort). It's quite possible that the strengthening in this part of the Pentagon played a role in "limiting" the extent of the damage outside the immediate impact zone (much of the interior was incinerated by jet fuel fires, though).

Had the airliner struck any of the other parts of the "normally-built" Pentagon, the destruction would have been much more extensive. And, undoubtably, more lives would have been lost.

To remind some, there were four airliners involved:

Two slammed into the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2.
One slammed into the Pentagon.
One slammed into a Penslyvania field. (I am willing to give more credence to "conspiracies" that U.S. fighters shot this airliner down ... why? Not sure. Just a hunch that's building more and more stronger as I watch the War on Terrorism unfold. If it was shot down, Bush, et al., would've been wiser to simply admit to it than cover it up. I think folks would have been understanding, considering the situation.)

CYBERAmazon

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
Everyone:

Hmm ... a wee bit past the six month anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, and the conspiracy theories are running amok. Can't wait to see what the conspiracy followers have cooked up by the one year anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.

Anyway, back on-topic. The part of the Pentagon that was hit by the jetliner had recently been renovated and its "innards" hardened against such an attack. Basically, the terrorists hit the one side of the five-sided Pentagon that had been structurally reinforced against a terrorist attack (although I don't think the brass had a civilian airliner in mind ... more like a bomb or missile strike of some sort). It's quite possible that the strengthening in this part of the Pentagon played a role in "limiting" the extent of the damage outside the immediate impact zone (much of the interior was incinerated by jet fuel fires, though).

Had the airliner struck any of the other parts of the "normally-built" Pentagon, the destruction would have been much more extensive. And, undoubtably, more lives would have been lost.

To remind some, there were four airliners involved:

Two slammed into the World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2.
One slammed into the Pentagon.
One slammed into a Penslyvania field. (I am willing to give more credence to "conspiracies" that U.S. fighters shot this airliner down ... why? Not sure. Just a hunch that's building more and more stronger as I watch the War on Terrorism unfold. If it was shot down, Bush, et al., would've been wiser to simply admit to it than cover it up. I think folks would have been understanding, considering the situation.)

CYBERAmazon

but the way things are described as happening gave us important heroes for that time (in the plane which crashed in the Field)

Jon Miller

[Dis]

and a snazzy catch phrase and song by neil young.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Sandman
I think a plane really hit the Pentagon. Often in normal aircrashes the debris is spread over a wide area as the plane totally disintegrates. That is why there is not much debris.

Then the area should have be filled with debrits and burning oil.
It was not the case, I believe.

But the biggest question for me : They have reported casualty from this official plane crash ? How can a crash fake if the human casualty is real ?