Pentagon 9/11

GekuL

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
405
There's a difference between flying a plane and crashing one.
 

dysfunction

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,709
Indeed and stalling the plane might make it even easier to guide it into a building by bouncing it off a helipad...
 

Panda On Smack

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,030
i love the conspiracy stuff

im sure there is the odd cover up here and there in this whole ordeal
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
thing is with these programs, no one can ever give evidence for the official stuff.
one example from this one

"there is no evidence there was any bombs in the building"

ok, so where is the evidence that there wasnt?! where is the evidence that only fire made a steel structured building fall down? ive seen videos off the net where there is a yellow blast right before the planes hit the towers. also a really strange one where the wings just vanish, yet they have not made contact with the building.

there is no evidence a missile hit the pentagon

ok, where is the evidence that a plane hit it?! can it be proven a missile didnt hit it? if not, why then do you not need proof to say a plane hit?

if its official, no evidence is needed and just some crazy old man talking shit and make things up is fine proof that everything they say is right. if you look at the conspiracy stuff, you get pictures, videos etc that show these odd occurences which make you think twice.

best site i found http://911review.org/index.shtml
 

Dillinja

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
3,056
I watched it. It just re-told everything that I've seen/heard before. The thing about playing the stock markets was quite interesting though.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
im in the live chat now, see if any of my Qs will be answerd :D
 

Alliandre

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
202
Ok. For this site. Question 1's been answered. The pentagon isn't a civilian building. Question 2, does it mention the height of the plane? Could you have explained it if it only hit the second floor? Wouldn't that be amazing? Question 3's already been explained as well, with the only burning stuff in the vacinity and the building being built to absorb impact. Question 4. Wouldn't you want a new lawn after all those services had been driving over your lawn? I certainly would. Question 5, you can clearly see the impact marks of the wings, though they don't go as far in to the building, for obvious reasons. Question 6, of course they're not going to want to tell someone where it is. People might want to try and cover up evidence. The easiest way to avoid it is to cover it up. Question 7, no, I can't see the point of impact. But then, you can't see much with all the water being sprayed at the building.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Its all too easy for a conspiracy site to say that kerosene fires have never brought down a steel-framed building, but I don't recall anybody flying fully laden jet airliners into said buildings at over 400 mph....

The investigations have shown that it was the design of the buildings that were mainly responsible for their collapse, in that much of the structural support was placed building's shell (the steel vertical columns).

I have seen video footage, taken on the telephoto end of a lens, of these supports, just before teh building collapsed. You can very clearly see them slowly begin to buckle 0utw4rds, before snapping. The resultant collapse is a chain reaction of each level of the building collapsing on top of one another.

PS stupid bloody filter :(
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Good point Tom.

-tris. The evidence that it was a 757 hitting the pentagon ? Lots of 757 bits found. The evidence that it wasn't a missile ? No missile bits found, no trace of explosives, over 100 eyewitness accounts of it being a passenger airliner.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
This evidence is further supported by the collapse of the 2nd tower to be hit (the one that fell first). The aircraft mostly missed the central core of the tower, leaving a gaping hole on 2 sides. More damage to the tower's skin = faster collapse.

Its like the Moon Landing hoax theorists. They don't have to deny anything. They present a caseload of 'facts', and sit back to watch the ignorant gasp in amazement. "wow thats amazing, why isn't he in shadow!" "omg look, the shadow's aren't parallel!" "jesus, they would have been fried alive passing through that radiation".

When you present the real, hard, scientific evidence, and debunk the mythology, you only get silence in return.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Granted there are some moronic conspiracy theorists out there, but not all conspiracy theories are moronic themselves. As for the Pentagon thing, I've no idea if a plane crashed in to it or a missle. Tbh I trust the media about as much as I trust crackpot conspiracy theorists so it's difficult to know what to believe.

Most of the time I don't really give a toss :)
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
The thing about the towers collapsing is you get professionals in both camps saying why it could/couldn't happen. Apparently the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the steel, so it was a mixture of impact & heat....but that still doesn't explain why they fell so fast - free fall, no resistance. I've seen footage of other buidlings collapsing due to structural failure and they topple/lunge etc. Surely the top section should have crumpled nearby buildings (they're fekin tall buildings).

I remember reading about an engineer saying the buildings were probably rigged with explosives when built. And the seismograph up-state that recorded (what numerous eye-witnesses reported to be) a big bang/explosion just before they collapsed?? And whats'his'face, who owned the lease on the third building, talking about pulling that building? (which couldn't be done in that time unless is was pre-rigged for terrorists purposes or demo like the towers?)

FBI agents reassigned? Told to ignore this shit? Sounds like the first WTC bomb doesn't it? The FBI had a guy on the inside (who said he could intervene/stop it) and was told no!?!

ppfft

The most convincing argument I've seen reg the moon landing was the lab in the US that daily bounces a laser off a reflector on the lunar surface (to measure the distance etc) - the idea is that the astronauts placed the reflector at their landing site, ergo they were there...but! they could have put it there with an unmanned probe !!! (heh)
The most convincing argument for the hoax theory is the fact that after several jaunts, lasting into the early seventies, they've never gone back. Peeps assumed that in 30 years we'd have hotels up there'n'shit. Look, they either didn't go or aliens scared them! : )


:m00:
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
nath said:
Granted there are some moronic conspiracy theorists out there, but not all conspiracy theories are moronic themselves. As for the Pentagon thing, I've no idea if a plane crashed in to it or a missle. Tbh I trust the media about as much as I trust crackpot conspiracy theorists so it's difficult to know what to believe.

Most of the time I don't really give a toss :)



omg Nath = me! tbh, I think I don't really want to know what "really" happens and why. my distrust and despising of humanity would drive me to despair :(
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
ok so its fair enough to say the WTC collapsed, just because it can. but what about the other 47 floor building that just collapsed, with only a small fire in it?
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
The towers collapsed so 'quickly' and 'easily' because unlike most other structures, their support frame is on the outside of the building. As each level pancakes into the other, the welded steel supports on the outside snap 0utw4rds, thus enabling the floors above to drop further.

A normal steel framed building does not do this, because most of the rigidity comes from a frame that is almost entirely inside the building.

Of course this is difficult to accept by some people, so they concoct evidence of a controlled demolition, resorting to claims of mysterious secret weapons, rays from space, bombs, etc. Which sounds simpler? That the US government flew a military aircraft into WTC1, firing missiles moments before collision, then flying a jet airliner into WTC2, and later still performing a controlled demolition of both using some as yet unknown destructive force? Or could it be that maniacs hijacked poorly secured airliners and flew them at full speed into the same buildings, causing catastrophic damage to both building's structures? Occam's Razor anybody?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7big.rm

I don't know about the other building that collapsed, but if you're still in any doubt, then read some real science http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

And that nicely contradicts what people say about kerosene not burning hotly enough to melt steel.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Tom said:
And that nicely contradicts what people say about kerosene not burning hotly enough to melt steel.
It's an interesting theory, and could well be true. Of course maybe it's not. Hardcore conspiracy theorist sceptics are just as bad as hardcore conspiracy theorists who think the royal family are all lizard people. You put so much blind trust in to the establishment and have this attitude that conspiracies could never exist it's simply absurd. As I said before, I don't know what happened and I doubt I ever will but I totally accept the possibility that it could be a conspiracy. Lose the fucking stigma about them and stop assuming that anyone who thinks people in power aren't entirely trustworthy also believe that they've been abducted by aliens and used to repopulate their race.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
I'm not saying that, what I am saying is that I haven't yet seen any conspiracy theory that used a scientific approach to gain evidence. Nearly everything is conjecture, and speculation.

Its like the MMR jab debate. One study a few years ago asked if it was possible that MMR and Autism were linked, and all of a sudden you have a bunch of people standing up and demanding more expensive alternatives. The fact that not a single study, anywhere, ever, has shown any evidence whatsoever of a link between the two, should quell the debate. It doesn't though, does it? Even now there is a hardcore of 'disbelievers' who refuse to accept what is staring them in the face.

Call it superstition, or paranoia, personally I call it idiocy. Blind faith? If 1+1=2 then yeah I'm blind.

/edit: Oh BTW, the above quotes aren't exactly a theory, since they draw their conclusions from the wreckage (bent struts, broken joints, etc)
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I had a similar attitude, but the fact is sometimes there is truth to these theories. Of course the vast majority are bullshit but that's because all it takes to come up with a conspiracy theory is "I bet so and so did such and such because of this and that". However you seem to have this stigma that if it's not come from the official sources then it must be a crock of shit. I've not actually read enough about the WTC theories (on both sides) to come to a conclusion. I've heard a couple of interesting questions that I've not found an answer two (though I've not really looked) such as why the 747 was allowed to veer so far off course without fighters being scrambled which I believe was the standard protocol. However, like I said I'll be happy to be shown evidence to the contrary, I'm not clinging to this.

The point is, there is weight and truth to certain theories out there and if you actually lose the stigma you have about it and look at it with an open mind, rather than just looking for absurd and shit conspiracy theories to back up your claims that they're all shit - you might find that there's more to it than just a bunch of hippies complaining about the man.

Tom said:
/edit: Oh BTW, the above quotes aren't exactly a theory, since they draw their conclusions from the wreckage (bent struts, broken joints, etc)

I don't see why that stops them being a theory, the people weren't there and don't know exactly what happened so they looked at the evidence and came up with that. Strikes me that's exactly what a theory is.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Just like I can theorise that a car wrapped around a lamp post got that way because somebody was driving it badly.
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
Tom said:
Just like I can theorise that a car wrapped around a lamp post got that way because somebody was driving it badly.

And what if the brakes were tampered with? The driver may have been faultless...

:touch:
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
nath said:
You really are an obnoxious **** aren't you.

It hardly seemed obnoxious. A tad patronising, but this is a forum ffs.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
nath said:
You really are an obnoxious **** aren't you.

I'm the most open minded person I know. I didn't bat an eyelid when Dale Winton came out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom