How many of you believe.....

[Sportsdude]

I'm not all that into these "9/11 the Government did it" conspiracies.  Even though I saw the terror attacks coming due to america's foreign policy and the first world trade center bombings, kenyan bombings, the cole bombings and so on. When the teacher told the class that this happend I said out loud Osama bin Laden and every one stopped, turned around, and looked at me in puzzlement to who that was.

[P.C.]

Wow....well that goes to show you MY ignorance.  I don't think I'd ever heard of him before that.

[Sportsdude]

Well its not like I read any books about him or anything while kids my age were watching cartoons when they were little I was watching the news. Kids who watched cartoons in my generation missed out.  In a span of 13 years starting from when the berlin wall fell - i remember peter jennings standing on the wall I was 3 years old to[/DIV]the first wtc bombing[/DIV]waking up to the la earthquake[/DIV]the biggest flood in the history of north america happend in my backyard. It was facinating govt let people walked up the highway to the flats in chesterfield to see the destruction[/DIV]- I remember waking up when i was 5 and turning on the tv and watched russian helicopters shooting missiles at the russian parliment building. (Yelstiens coup).[/DIV]Vaguely remember the Quebec referendum- mainly because the U.S. media didn't cover it mainly because they didn't care.[/DIV]I remember watching Waco[/DIV]Oklahoma City[/DIV]Saw Atlanta bombings when it happend. It was the year my grandpa died so we were in florida and I couldn't sleep that night and watched the bomb go off on live television.[/DIV]Remember watching Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1. Bombing of Baghdad under Clinton, and of course GWII.Oh and I remember Tiamen Square.Again somehow I remember it at 3.  The only backlash to this is that you eventually become de-sensitized. Which I have become. I basically now feel no pain for people. Most of my generation will become this way only it happend to them on september 11 while it happend to me much earlier.

[TRUTH]

[table border="1" cellpadding="30" cellspacing="0" cols="1" width="780"][tbody][tr][td]

[a href="http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/index.html"]Main page[/a][h1]Where did the plane hit the Pentagon?[/h1]

You must look at this French site that has an analysis of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Here is their English version:
[a href="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm" target="_blank"]http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm[/a]And this site is doing 3D simulations:
[a href="http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/" target="_blank"]http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/[/a][/p]The French are pointing out:[/p][ul type="circle"][li]No photo shows airplane pieces, body parts of passengers, luggage,etc, nor do news reports mention such parts.
[/li][li]The initial damage was along the ground floor, which implies the plane hit the ground floor, but there is no airplane-shaped hole in the building. Most importantly, the body of the plane was taller than one floor of the building. Therefore, the body of the plane should have punched a hole through at least two floors.
[/li][li]The section that collapsed did so quite a while after the plane crash, just as the WTC buildings collapsed for no apparent reason long after the plane crashes (in the case of  building 7, the collapse was many hours later).[/li][/ul]Photos of the North and South WTC towers show airplane-shaped holes, so where is the hole in the Pentagon? And where are the airplane pieces, luggage, and dead passengers?
[table cellpadding="30" width="660"][tbody][tr][td][a href="http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/eh29.jpg" target="_blank"][img]http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/eh29s.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="238" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="130"][/a][/td][td]The French site has a top view, so I made this front view to show how large the hole in the Pentagon should be (although I certainly have thes caling slightly incorrect because it is difficult to scale four photos properly). (click the image)The upper portion of the image shows the hole in the North tower. The people in the windows give you an indication of the size of the hole.Of course, the plane that hit the North tower was a 767, which was slightly larger than the 757 in this image. [/p][/td][/tr][/tbody][/table]The wings of a Boeing 757 are 125 feet wide (38 meters); the body is 155 feet long (47m); and each engine isabout 9 feet in diameter (2.75m). The plane weighs more than 100 tons.
For 757 specs: [a href="http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/product.html" target="_blank"]http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/product.html[/a]
[/p][h3]A 757 is half the height of the Pentagon[/h3]We are told the plane came in low to the ground,which explains the lack of a hole in the upper floors of the building.However, the distance between the bottom of the engines and the top of the cabin is more than 18 feet (5.5m). From the bottom of the engines to the top of the tail is about 41 feet (12.6m). The Pentagon is 77 feet (23 meters) tall. Therefore, the plane was 53% of the height ofthe Pentagon.
Pentagon specs: [a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html" target="_blank"]http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html[/a][/p]Look at the size of the plane in my composite image.In order for the plane to hit only the first floor of the building, the engines would have to be below ground level, and we have to ignore the tail.[/p]Also, the plane was 155 feet (47m) long; the only way such a long plane could slip into the first floor is if it were perfectly horizontal and perfectly level. The slightest tilting would cause it to take out the second floor or dig into the dirt.[/p]Considering there is very busy freeway in front of the crash site, along with road signs, light posts, and trees, how did the plane get so close to the ground? Those Arabs were great pilots!
[/p][h3]Jet-fuel fireballs are dark orange![/h3]On 7 March 2002 the Pentagon released five images from a security camera to prove the Arabs flew a Boeing 757 into thePentagon. Obviously they lied when they said they did not have any video of the plane crash, but now they feel they must release it, probably to counteract that French site.
Here is the video: [a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp" target="_blank"]http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp[/a][/p]Since they lied about the video, can we trust them on other issues? How many times does a person have to lie to you before you question his other remarks?[/p]The image below is a composite of two frames of that lousy, low quality video. There are two odd things to notice in these two frames.

[/p]

[img]http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/eh28s.jpg" height="454" width="320"]

1) In the upper frame there is something white near the extreme right edge.This resembles the exhast of a missile. A 757 does not leave a trail of white smoke.Whatever is producing the white smoke is hidden behind the rectangular object in the foreground. It would be more useful to see the frames before and after this. What a coincidence that the military decided to release the frame in which this large 757 is hidden behind a small object![/p]2) In the lower frame the white smoke has dissipated slightly, and whatever produced the white smoke has exploded. It looks as if the explosion started before it hit the building. Also, the fireball from an airplane crash (or an automobile crash) will be dark orange and full of soot. A bright, clean fireball implies plenty of oxygen was available;ie, explosives.[/p]The Pentagon is 77 feet (23 meters) tall. Notice that the fireball in this image is perhaps 50% taller than the Pentagon.Since the fireball is a bright yellow at this large size, what did it look like when it was half this size? Why not release all of the video frames?[/p]Perhaps the frames before this one showed the fireball glowing such a bright, bluish white that it looked like 10,000 people were arc welding at the same time!
[/p][h3]The Arabs were incredible pilots[/h3]The Pentagon is a very large building, but it is low to the ground. The plane the Arabs were flying was more than half the height of thebuilding. The easiest thing for the Arabs to do it would be to hit the top of the building while diving down at an angle.However, we are told that the Arabs decided to hit the front of the building. More amazing, instead of hitting while diving down at an angle,we are told that they flew only [span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]inches [/span]above the ground to hit the ground floor of the buildingin a nearly horizontal manner.[/p]There is a busy highway in front of the Pentagon, along with a railing, trees, and other objects. We are suppose to believe the Arabs flew only slightly above the cars along the highway. One witness claims that the airplane was so low that it knocked down a light post along the road.[/p]To make this more absurd, after passing over the highway the Arabs had only a fraction of a second of flight time remaining, and in that brief time the Arabs dropped the plane even lower to a few millimeters above the grass.[/p]The pilot's view of the ground in a 757 is not very good. For the Arabs to fly so low was a tremendous achievement. Especially when traveling at 345 mph (555 km/hour), which is the speed the flight data recorder supposedly shows.(The Pentagon claims to have found the flight data recorder, but the other parts of the 100 ton airplane vanished. I can believe that!)[/p]Furthermore, airplanes never fly in straight lines; rather, they roll and tilt.  Therefore, flying only inches above the ground without crashing is a tremendous achievement for inexperienced pilots![/p]Do you realize that the 757 was behaving as if it was a cruise missile?
[/p][h3]The Arabs certainly were nice guys![/h3]The reports claim that the Arabs flew around the Pentagon a while before hitting the building. By coincidence, the section the Arabs chose to hit did not have many people in it, so casualties were much lower than if they had hit elsewhere. That particular section was being renovated, and the people who normally worked there had been sent to other offices.[/p]The Pentagon is said to be the largest office building in the world, and the Arabs decided to hit the small section that was being renovated.What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit Rumfeld's office.What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit a section of the building that was full of people.[/p]Did the nice Arabs fly around the Pentagon awhile in order to find the section with the least number of people in it?
[/p][h3]How rapidly did the fireball expand?[/h3]The date and time is displayed in the lower left corner of the five frames of video that the Pentagon decided to let us see, although the time is incorrect byabout 32 hours.The time is shown only to the nearest second. I suspect the real video has IRIG time code recorded on an audio track, in which case the military could precisely identify each frame of video.[/p]The first and second frames have identical times. The first frame shows the building before the plane hit. The second frame shows a fireball that is at least 50 percent taller than the pentagon. This means that within 1 second the plane crashed and a fireball grew to a height of at least 100 feet (33m).[/p]If we could see the frames between those two we could estimate the rate at which the fireball expands. This would also let us determine whether the fireball was from jet fuel or an explosive. Jet fuel fireballs, as with automobile fireballs, do not expand very quickly. By comparison, the fireball from an explosive can expand at an enormous rate.[/p]Why does the Pentagon allow us to see only five frames of video rather than the entire video? Note that the video of the planes hitting the World Trade Centers and the collapse of the towers were broadcast by American news reporters at least 2 million times during September in order to stimulate anger towards the Arabs. Why did they not broadcast the video of this plane crashing into the Pentagon at least 2 million times?[/p]I think the Pentagon refuses to release the entire video because it would show a small missile flying close to the ground, and then it would show the fireball expanding at such an incredible rate that even the "ordinary" Americans would realize that it was from an explosive.[/p]If the video proves that a 757 hit the building then the Pentagon officials are idiots for keeping the video a secret. They are also idiots for hiding the remains of the plane, the dead passengers, and the luggage. Their secrecy is allowing conspiracy rumors to run wild.[/p]Do you think the Pentagon officials are so stupid as to hide proof of the 757? I doubt if any human is that stupid. I say their behavior is evidence that they are involved in this fake "Terrorist Attack On America".
[/p][h3]If it looks and acts like a bomb...[/h3]When an airplane crash has all the characteristics of a bomb, there is a good chance that it was a bomb.[/p]I think a more sensible explanation for Flight 77 is that it never crashed into the Pentagon. Rather, the Pentagon fired a missile at the building, and they selected a section of the building that was being renovated in order to reduce deaths. I think they also set the missile to explode before it hit the building in order to reduce damage.[/p]The plane that witnesses saw flying around the Pentagon may have been Flight 77, but that plane did not crash into the Pentagon.
[/p][h3]What happened to Flight 77?[/h3]There were pieces of an airplane scattered around the Pennsylvania countryside. Everybody assumes that all of those pieces belong to Flight 93, but maybe Flight 77 crashed (or was shot down) over there, also.This would explain why so many people are asking why the Flight 93 debris was scattered over many miles, as this site explains:
[a href="http://www.flight93crash.com/" target="_blank"]http://www.flight93crash.com/[/a]
[/p][h3]Joe Vialls defends the Pentagon![/h3]Joe Vialls tells us:[blockquote]Forget the media hype about "Arab hijackers" because there were none on board any of the aircraft on 11 September.[/blockquote]Amazingly, a person who claims the planes were controlled by remote control is defending the Pentagon. Was he bribed or threatened? Or is he just a nutty guy?I don't know, but I responded by writing an article in response to Joe Vialls:
[a href="http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/PentagonPlaneCrash2.html" target="_blank"]Response to Vialls[/a][/p]If you never saw Joe's site:
[a href="http://www.geocities.com/vialls/" target="_blank"]http://www.geocities.com/vialls/[/a]
[/p][h3]Do you still believe the Arabs flew a 757 into the Pentagon?[/h3]Check out the photos at this site:
[a href="http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html" target="_blank"]http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html[/a]On page 2 of that document is an image with the caption: "Damage visible in one of the open-air courtyards between building rings."The article doesn't identify the courtyard, but if it was one directly behind the crash site, the airplane did not penetrate it. That means the entire airplane compressed itself  like an accordion in the outer ring.[/p]The following document has a good image of the Pentagon and how the plane hit. Fortunately (for the Pentagon) the image does not show the highway, trees, or railings, nor how low the plane was to the ground. A more appropriate drawing would be a side view that shows a 757 only slightly above the cars, and how it then descended to only a few millimeters above the grass.
[a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html" target="_blank"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html[/a]

[/p][/td][/tr][/tbody][/table]

From: http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Hufschmid/PentagonPlaneCrash.html

[Witch]

This sounds an awful lot like the "We never landed on the moon" and "There's a worldwide organisation of Satanist Covens stealing 50,000 children a year for murder and ritual torture" conspiracy fallacies.

There are many logical hole in it anf them, not the least of which is how do you keep the secret? If the Government can't even keep a budget from leaking, how would they manage the mouths of the thousands of people necessary to keep this secret?

[myname]

This sounds an awful lot like the "We never landed on the moon" and "There's a worldwide organisation of Satanist Covens stealing 50,000 children a year for murder and ritual torture" conspiracy fallacies.[/div] [/div]There are many logical hole in it anf them, not the least of which is how do you keep the secret?[div] [div]If the Government can't even keep a budget from leaking, how would they manage the mouths of the thousands of people necessary to keep this secret?

i think its completely different. the 'satanic rings' are an allegation made with no supporting evidence.

as for the moon, there is an massive amount of evidence showing that we did in fact land on the moon.

the pentagon pictures however show a lot of thngs that just don't make sense. there's a lot of evidence that can't be explained away. some of it appears impossible to explain at all if you believe the official story.

i don't think that this is the same kind of baseless accusations as in the satanic cult stories or the 'moon hoax' stories.

 

[kingy]

why would the govt want to cover up the fact that it was/wasnt a plane? maybe it was one of their own missles?

[former s.consumer]

i can't belive i am even responding to this stuff ;(

[A href="http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/al.html"]http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/al.html[/A]

[A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel[/A]

 what happens when you add these two things together,add a high speed impact? you will have a hull that shreds and vapourizes,leaving only small amounts of residual alumminum at the scene which was discovered. the picture posted above shows an inner ring exit point not a first ring entry point.obviously the wings would have followed the path of the body into the hole.small hole because the plane would be beahving like a missle as it plowed into the building.eventually as it reached the inner core/rings the remaining hull would have been reduced down to very little that was then consumed in the subsequent fire. no missle,no drone jet,no military jet...just a hijacked boeing with passengers and a crew.

[myname]

you will have a hull that shreds and vapourizes,leaving only small amounts of residual alumminum at the scene which was discovered.
no way the entire plane and all abord will be reduced to tiny fragments. huge metal engines, tons (literally) of other parts- all that stuff turned into confettii?  i don't think so.


[/div][div]obviously the wings would have followed the path of the body into the hole.small hole because the plane would be beahving like a missle as it plowed into the building.eventually as it reached

that's a very tortured explanation that just about defies the laws of physics.

the wings would 'obviously follow' the body of the plane into the hole instead of coming off and/or breaking apart?  how could they when the plane itself was blocking the hole?

what supposedly caued the wings to 'follow' the body into the hole?

in an impact they would be flung away, and there's no force that's going to suck them into the hole all nice and neat like a vacuum cleaner. it's a ridiculous attempt at making something sound plausible.   i call bullshit.

[Sepoy]

So where is  N644AA today if it did not impact the Pentagon ?

[Tor]

So where is  N644AA today if it did not impact the Pentagon ?

That's a damn good question, and I doubt we'll ever really know. It sure doesn't look like a plane hit the Pentagon to me.

[kitten]

Recycled???

[Life]

 You cannot diagnose an aircraft accident based on a few grainy pictures.  Think of the ValuJet 592 crash that left barely a trace of evidence.  And another thing, the Pentagon is no ordinary building.

 

[Nope]

ValuJet 592 went down in [a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/may96/valujet_crash_5-13.html"]a flat, desolate expanse of the Florida Everglades[/a], which made many parts of the jet much more difficult to find. They did found more than half of the plane, FAR more wreckage than is evident in the Pentagon images.

"MIAMI (CNN) -- Investigators think they may have solved one of the mysteries surrounding the crash of ValuJet Flight 592. That is, where are the missing pieces of the plane?Since the crash on May 11, investigators have [a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/03/valujet/link_debris.jpg"]located only half of the plane[/a], and searchers have recovered relatively small pieces of human remains and wreckage.  [/p]But Monday, divers said they had found a crater within the main crater which may contain large aircraft parts and the remains of many of the 110 victims.  The new crater, located beneath the limestone rock base, is about 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep."[/p][a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/03/valujet/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/03/valujet/index.html[/a]

[Sportsdude]

You cannot diagnose an aircraft accident based on a few grainy pictures.  Think of the ValuJet 592 crash that left barely a trace of evidence.  And another thing, the Pentagon is no ordinary building. [/DIV]

Exactly. Remember Bill Frist on Terry Schiavo?