The answer is simple.
Show us the missing video and explain the inconsistancies.
It won't happen.
Show us the missing video and explain the inconsistancies.
It won't happen.
What hit the Pentagon?
- Thread starter psi_radar
- Start date
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Here is an article in reference to the design, and how that design assisted in limiting more widespread damage.Rich Parsons said:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/24/attacks.pentagon/
Flatlander said:
Those Dang Engineers
rmcrobertson said:
Ya well, not to hijack the thread, but what if the "capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, poverty" dudes are the grassy knoll guys?
Pardon my digression. Hardheadjarhead where are you? We discussed this long ago and I liked what you said...
psi_radar said:
Well not having been on ground zero, yet a three story building re-enforced for a large attack, and that airplanes have engines on the wings that would be ripped off instead of traveling with the plane into the building. The central body would act like a spear and penetrate, yet the fire supression system of the pentagon combined with the fuel and fire contained versus an open platform such as the towers, would allow for less burn damage. As I said I was not on ground zero, so I base this statment upon knowledge of systems, engineering, and what I call common sense in the fact of how would I design a building that may have to face a tank attack or small missile attack. Also How would I use the interior design to contain the enemy and allow for maximum usage for friendly troops. Hence localized fire supression systems that could be set off to limit the water damage as well as to contain any fires.
Also the Pentagon is concrete with the redundacy of multiple structures, versus the towers that were made of steel and glass, which is much more suseptable to heat damage from burning jet fuel.
OP
psi_radar
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #28
Rich Parsons said:
I agree with you about the central fuselage acting as a spear. That's logical. However, Boeing 757 and most large passenger and cargo planes carry their fuel mostly in the wings (that, you're right, should have sheared off--where are those?) and a single central tank. If we go by your model, then the bulk of the fuel (66.66667%) would be on the outside of the pentagon.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
I recall Upnorthkyosa had a debate going on this some time back...I thought it was settled. Its a vicious urban legend that was started in France, a half-brained fiction that ignores the pain of the relatives of those killed in the attack.
Did some people think they saw a small plane? Probably. Yet thousands more saw an airliner...some of whom were journalists on their way to work. There was slow traffic that day, and many, many people saw an airliner smack the building. The first reference below provides some of their testimony.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html
Dave Dobler posted a great response to all of this on morons.org. Scroll down the page a bit when you get there:
http://web.morons.org/forum/topic.jsp?id=56
For me, I'm not going to argue against it. I did that once. Those that want to might check the references above.
I'll say this: Those who buy into conspiracy theories like this get stimulated into thinking...but it is irrational thinking. It is pseudo-intellectual mind candy. Junk food for the brain. It panders to that part of the mind that yearns for knowledge--even if its bogus--and plays to that hunger for the revelation of hidden truths that many of us have. We feed our sense of discovery by embracing stuff like this, but without discovering anything. We feel we're iconoclasts by going against the opinion held by the majority--but we betray our individulalism by not honoring it with cogency.
If you want cognitive stimulation, find something of merit to read rather than stuff of this nature. If you want to feel you're "on to something" and privy to something few else know about, read some stuff by James Randi or "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Edge away from that part of your mind that calls you to believe in a myth and propogate it.
Regards,
Steve
Did some people think they saw a small plane? Probably. Yet thousands more saw an airliner...some of whom were journalists on their way to work. There was slow traffic that day, and many, many people saw an airliner smack the building. The first reference below provides some of their testimony.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html
Dave Dobler posted a great response to all of this on morons.org. Scroll down the page a bit when you get there:
http://web.morons.org/forum/topic.jsp?id=56
For me, I'm not going to argue against it. I did that once. Those that want to might check the references above.
I'll say this: Those who buy into conspiracy theories like this get stimulated into thinking...but it is irrational thinking. It is pseudo-intellectual mind candy. Junk food for the brain. It panders to that part of the mind that yearns for knowledge--even if its bogus--and plays to that hunger for the revelation of hidden truths that many of us have. We feed our sense of discovery by embracing stuff like this, but without discovering anything. We feel we're iconoclasts by going against the opinion held by the majority--but we betray our individulalism by not honoring it with cogency.
If you want cognitive stimulation, find something of merit to read rather than stuff of this nature. If you want to feel you're "on to something" and privy to something few else know about, read some stuff by James Randi or "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Edge away from that part of your mind that calls you to believe in a myth and propogate it.
Regards,
Steve
Thanks for the links Steve. I knew I'd seen some rebuttles out there, but I'm rather brainmushed this week.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Kaith Rustaz said:Thanks for the links Steve. I knew I'd seen some rebuttles out there, but I'm rather brainmushed this week.
Me too. Must be solar flares.
Regards,
Steve
OP
psi_radar
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #32
As I said at the beginning, sorry if it had already been discussed. I did a quick search and didn't come up with a match. Vicious? How so?
Steve, the listings you showed me are fairly compelling, though I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be, or why there's a punch-hole at ground level. I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death. As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation. Thanks,
Pete
R
raedyn
Guest
Good point. It is a worthy task to question, even if the answer ends up being they were right all along.psi_radar said:
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Vicious? How so?
By a number of definitions of the word.
64 people were on that plane. Each had family members. Resurrecting their pain by bringing up impure and faulty notions of their loved ones deaths is vicious. Playing with an event like this to satiate one's paranoid fantasies about devious plots is heartless...and mindless.
I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be,
If there were indeed any of these alleged videos, why should they? To indulge people who choose to ignore the THOUSANDS of witnesses to the event? So...do we then speculate that the government had a "mind control ray" wherein they implanted false memories of an airliner hitting the Pentagon?
The FBI very well may not be "suppressing" anything. Have you or anyone here made inquiries as to the videos? Do they even exist? If you can speculate as to the existence of an airliner, I suppose I can play the game with video footage. If there were no tapes, and the FBI came forth and said so...they would be accused of suppressing or destroying them. If they came forth with videos, and they revealed nothing...they would be accused of editing them. Its a "no win" situation for them.
I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death.
See above.
As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation.
Skepticism such as this has no intellectual weight and does nothing more than arrogate those touting it. Were it not for footage of the planes hitting the WTC, people would state that missiles did the deed...or, as has been posited as a reason for their collapse, pre-planted explosives. It is speculation run amok being dressed up--and badly so--as forensic investigation.
Raedyn, please note that conspiracy theorists do not tend to admit to error. It robs them of the illusion of power that the conspiracy theory gives them.
Regards,
Steve
By a number of definitions of the word.
64 people were on that plane. Each had family members. Resurrecting their pain by bringing up impure and faulty notions of their loved ones deaths is vicious. Playing with an event like this to satiate one's paranoid fantasies about devious plots is heartless...and mindless.
I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be,
If there were indeed any of these alleged videos, why should they? To indulge people who choose to ignore the THOUSANDS of witnesses to the event? So...do we then speculate that the government had a "mind control ray" wherein they implanted false memories of an airliner hitting the Pentagon?
The FBI very well may not be "suppressing" anything. Have you or anyone here made inquiries as to the videos? Do they even exist? If you can speculate as to the existence of an airliner, I suppose I can play the game with video footage. If there were no tapes, and the FBI came forth and said so...they would be accused of suppressing or destroying them. If they came forth with videos, and they revealed nothing...they would be accused of editing them. Its a "no win" situation for them.
I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death.
See above.
As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation.
Skepticism such as this has no intellectual weight and does nothing more than arrogate those touting it. Were it not for footage of the planes hitting the WTC, people would state that missiles did the deed...or, as has been posited as a reason for their collapse, pre-planted explosives. It is speculation run amok being dressed up--and badly so--as forensic investigation.
Raedyn, please note that conspiracy theorists do not tend to admit to error. It robs them of the illusion of power that the conspiracy theory gives them.
Regards,
Steve
psi_radar said:
Well as all models are not 100% correct, I would still expect that the wings would have ended up in the first section of penetration. The kenetic energy of their motion would have been enough to enter, get ripped off, and remain in a single location that could be contained and have fire surpressant available to assist.
OP
psi_radar
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #37
Rich Parsons said:
One of the links that Steve sent stated that the particular thermal and ballistic dynamics of this crash sucked the wings inside the building, where as you said they were doused with fire suppressant from the building and then the trucks outside.
Just my two cents on these subjects:
It is how you approach the question, makes all the difference.
If you make a statement, and show links or actual evidence that can be discussed, then this is alright in my mind.
If you make statments, that are unfounded, with no real proof, and all of it depends upon paranoia and the fear someone might be hiding something, then this is not the right way to accomplish this. My opinion.
First, I agree with Steve, go request to videos and show they are denying them. Show people who say their video was taken from them and not returned. They I will admit there is video available.
Now to address the possibility of video being present. The pentagon building and the response time may be considered National Security, as this is where much of the day to day work of the military is accomplished. This way, no one will be able to study the video (* if it existis *), to learn how to better attack the building the next time.
The biggest concern about Security and items or ideas classified as secret or what ever, is that people will take little bits of information and put it together, and then figure out something that is classified.
I did the same thing to a friend in his office, with no classified information. After his repots and research was complete it became classified. He had to laugh, because I told him it would be. (* The events have already happened back in the mid 90's this data is actually public knowledge now *). Yet, for a period of time it was considered classified.
This is not to support people beliefs that there is video, only if you go and prove there is video this is to address why it might not be released. So, I respectfully ask you to go ask, and use the "Freedom of Information Act" to request. :asian:
While I agree the questioning is a good thing. There are ways of doing it.
i.e. I here you train with a fraud that got his certifactes out a craker jack box.
or you might try something more like:
I was curious about your instructor. Others have not had good things to say. I would like to talk to him, and or ask him, about his training and see for myself.
The first is very insulting and vicious, the second is polite and respectful yet, will get to the same end. Just my opinion though.
Confirmation is good. Start with the federal governement. Contact ABC/NBS/CBS/Fox/UPN/CNN/et al and see if any of their reporters had video that was suppressed. I am sure that at least one will come forward. Contact teh national government and ask for the videos. I would be curious to see what answer you get.
:asian:
hardheadjarhead said:
It is how you approach the question, makes all the difference.
If you make a statement, and show links or actual evidence that can be discussed, then this is alright in my mind.
If you make statments, that are unfounded, with no real proof, and all of it depends upon paranoia and the fear someone might be hiding something, then this is not the right way to accomplish this. My opinion.
hardheadjarhead said:
First, I agree with Steve, go request to videos and show they are denying them. Show people who say their video was taken from them and not returned. They I will admit there is video available.
Now to address the possibility of video being present. The pentagon building and the response time may be considered National Security, as this is where much of the day to day work of the military is accomplished. This way, no one will be able to study the video (* if it existis *), to learn how to better attack the building the next time.
The biggest concern about Security and items or ideas classified as secret or what ever, is that people will take little bits of information and put it together, and then figure out something that is classified.
I did the same thing to a friend in his office, with no classified information. After his repots and research was complete it became classified. He had to laugh, because I told him it would be. (* The events have already happened back in the mid 90's this data is actually public knowledge now *). Yet, for a period of time it was considered classified.
This is not to support people beliefs that there is video, only if you go and prove there is video this is to address why it might not be released. So, I respectfully ask you to go ask, and use the "Freedom of Information Act" to request. :asian:
hardheadjarhead said:
While I agree the questioning is a good thing. There are ways of doing it.
i.e. I here you train with a fraud that got his certifactes out a craker jack box.
or you might try something more like:
I was curious about your instructor. Others have not had good things to say. I would like to talk to him, and or ask him, about his training and see for myself.
The first is very insulting and vicious, the second is polite and respectful yet, will get to the same end. Just my opinion though.
hardheadjarhead said:
Confirmation is good. Start with the federal governement. Contact ABC/NBS/CBS/Fox/UPN/CNN/et al and see if any of their reporters had video that was suppressed. I am sure that at least one will come forward. Contact teh national government and ask for the videos. I would be curious to see what answer you get.
:asian:
OP
psi_radar
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #39
Rich Parsons said:
I'm not sure who you're addressing here, me or the theorists who made the multimedia. I'll assume it's me. I think I've been polite and respectful, even contrite so far. If you don't think so, then you might be inferring more from my writing than I intended to imply.
This was my first stop for information since people on this board have a wide range of opinions and resources, and I knew I could come away with credible input. I'm not trying to propagate rumors or misinformation, if anything I'd like to debunk it. If I wanted people to just say "f-yeah man, the shadow government," I could go to any of the university coffee houses near me and bring up this topic.
psi_radar said:
Psi_Radar,
If it was directed at you I would have said so. I was making a reply to Steve and adding in my generic thoughts, for some could not believe how Steve might think that way. I was just offering a different point of view. If you take it to heart and wish to reflect upon it and make some changes then so be it. I did not mean it directed at one person in specific, only generic reply, hence no opening direction to a person.
:asian:
