|
Hunt the Boeing!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Alccode |
This is an interesting site that I suggest everyone look at:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numer.../erreurs_en.htm
Some might add that this is just the "tip of the iceberg." :thepirate
The most shocking part is, if there was no crashed 757, what happened to the real plane, and all the people on it that supposedly died that day? And there are other questions... |
|
|
| Mental Exodus |
| THIS along with dozens of testimonials,sites and other things ive seen is EXACTLY why i never watch TV and barely listen to news. MOST OF WHAT U C IS FAKE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I should really dig up a few of the sites ive come across that lead along thease lines to add much needed weight to this thred. THE scary part is 70% of us NEVER QUESTION ANYTHING. People take what they see seriously. AND THIS IS WHAT EVENTUALY COMPOSES OUR REALITY. Whatever the media/gov wants u to think,feal,like or dislike and KNOW will end up effecting u. |
|
|
| Alccode |
Mental Exodus, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. :)
Don't tell me you buy the New World Order and the 9/11-orchestrated-by-the-US-itself stuff?
According to what I've read, there are 2 popular theories as to what really hit the Pentagon. Either a cruise missile, or a remote-controlled F-16. In either case the damage was deliberate (along with the WTC destruction), and was caused by right-wing industrial militants who essentially performed a coup d'etat on that day.
Strange, eh? You people should see some of the evidence - makes you think.
I personally find it hard to believe. However, the Pentagon issue really bothers me. There is no way in hell that a Boeing 757 could have done that. Have you seen the photos of the impacted side before it collapsed? There was quite literally a 2-3 meter hole. Last I checked, a 757 was much larger than that.
What's really happening here?... :conf: |
|
|
| occrider |
Sigghhhh this theory was posted before and quickly dismissed. More often than not, ignorance creates these wild conspiracy theories. Don't you think that structural engineers would have a better understanding of this than people who have nothing better to do than think up wild crap and post it on the internet? Anyway, here's your answer:
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other
than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World
Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported
that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this.
The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take
a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's
up to you to Hunt the Boeing!
Origins: The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked
American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into
the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged
by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French
author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud.
Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the
extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77
did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pengaton, and that "the
American government is lying."
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted
in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France
and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As
Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there
are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates
reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your
perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where
readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the
damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to
the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a
minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only
damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the
outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II
reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of
the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced
during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that
we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar
project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The
first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the
plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with
a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all
the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a
strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides
tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But
inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the
entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning
into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They
stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended
over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the
new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have
collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures
of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground
floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001,
one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole,
about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service
alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken
loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the
subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the
outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on
September 11 -- before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate
terrorist attack -- newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally
flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as
extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two
airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of
impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass
buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their
energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated
all the way through the WTC towers.
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at
the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was
damaged and needed to be repaired:
2) 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?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so
low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby
dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive
damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still
hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first
and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the
five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It
slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour
after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the
building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact
point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building
collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to
evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself
until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard
visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly
renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were
closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much
higher if another area had been hit.
Next question:
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring.
Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the
ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" -- it struck the Pentagon between the first and
second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane
disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not
visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner
was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed,
exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in
after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the
intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade
Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to
collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other
photographs, however, such as the one below:
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the
lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A
base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other
heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below)
would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon
lawn otherwise.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no
damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely
snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and
carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated
the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were
destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building
caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below
(note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft
was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible
from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections.
In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." " You know, I'd rather
not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information
about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I
don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything
left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was
asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day
after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and
then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of
the Pentagon.
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a
huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half
hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the
impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the
impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water
from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind
the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had
collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
Last updated: 1 April 2002
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2003
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
Sources:
Harrison, Rebecca. "Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theory Book Lures French."
Reuters. 1 April 2002.
Henley, Jon. "US Invented Air Attack on Pentagon, Claims French Book."
The Guardian. 1 April 2002.
FYI use snopes.com to dispel any other wild theories you may have. It's very accurate and ALWAYS lists sources. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Alccode |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sigghhhh this theory was posted before and quickly dismissed. More often than not, ignorance creates these wild conspiracy theories. Don't you think that structural engineers would have a better understanding of this than people who have nothing better to do than think up wild crap and post it on the internet?
|
occrider, thanks for the information and the link, it was definitely useful. Looking at the photos and reading the explanation, it was a little difficult to accept the 757 point of impact, but I didn't realize earlier that it actually approached that particular wall segment at an angle, not head-on.
My favourite part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is the suggestion that the US used a secret, invisible sub-infrared laser (made from technology from the old USSR) to "melt" the WTC towers after the planes crashed into them, thereby explaining the dust clouds and the even pattern of the collapse of the towers. Second place comes the notion that there were explosives planted into the WTC towers beforehand to facilitate destruction.
:haha: |
|
|
|
|
