Pentagon strike.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Who ever said it flew in horizontally?

Go at page one at re-view the movie.

[Ecthy]

Your movie? Forget it.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Then, maybe the hole IS wide enough fro a whole plane,

It is not.

and your images are totally useless.

Post your "usefull" images then.

[Serb]

You think this hole is enough to suck entire Boeing?

[Ecthy]

You have only errors to point out, no version on your own. So shut up, anarcho.

(to be complete, these errors are small in my eyes, things that don't matter)

With no knowledge as to what lense the person shooting the picture used, the foreground and middleground objects are no reference for the size of the hole.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Your movie? Forget it.

It's not my movie.
There were plenty of other links in this thread.

[Ecthy]

What movie are you trying to point me to then if not that silly highschool one you posted in your OP?

[RGBVideo]

Ah, so the plane has ceased to exist? That must be it!

Hey, if JohnT, a businessman who has read at least two physics books in High School, thinks anyone who disagrees with his conclusions is a layperson who is being manipulated, it must be as he says!

Maybe VJ and you are just polar circle nerds.

Whoa, a personal attack when you run out of arguments directly copied from wikipedia! Totally original!

PS: Please educate me more about classical mechanics, oh great one. I just love when someone who is "studying" political "science" lectures to me how a plane which leaves such hole really could've flown into the building from a partly vertical angle

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ecthy
You have only errors to point out, no version on your own.

Fair enough. I have no my version, yet. But what I've seen so far in official version is BS.

(to be complete, these errors are small in my eyes, things that don't matter)

Oh, yeah. So when you see a headless body you always belive it was shot, if your superior tells you so?

[Ecthy]

Nothing ever comes out of it

If I don't know the body, then I probably will because I won't give a damn

As far as this pentagon thing goes, years have passed and all that has come out is that ostentatious movie. What about making a study or something, something proper and scientific? Look, even if there IS something there, it's just too bad all those conspiracy theory people just can't ever get any proper act together, and if you start talking about makign a serious argument, they come with brilliant arguments like "Oh what, that's just *their* science, it's Teh system and leaves no room for alternative ideas and bla bla"

If I have to choose between an offical version backed by an investigation on one hand and that video on the other hand, then I must say I'm very sorry for you and your crusade.

[Serb]

My crusade?
All my fault is that I shared this info with you in attempt to open your eyes.

[RGBVideo]

Ok, enough with the personal crap and pointless sarcasm, here's my take on the story:

The problem really isn't with the light damage inflicted to Pentagon building, it's a military building and 757 is a civilian airplane. The main problem is that there isn't really enough crap on the ground and in the building for the plane to be a 757.

There probably isn't any elaborate goverment conspiracies behind this, since the goverment has nothing to gain by crashing it's own buildings. I don't think the official story is true, but I don't care enough to start whining about it.

[Velociryx]

a discussion that's come up before, and always with the same results. no matter what you believe, it IS interesting that the following questions have never been answered.

what happened on that day? i don't pretend to know, but there are several points i think it valid to question:

* the official story is that the plane hit the gound before it reached the pentagon, and then ploughed into the building. Coolio. We've seen pictures of ground impacts before. So where's the scorched earth? Where's the torn up ground at the point of impact? (further, this complicates things a great deal for those who say that the wings musta gotten sucked inside the building...which seems quite impossible with the official story of hitting the ground first. it also pokes a hole into the notion that the plane could have penetrated through to e-block after the ground dissipated the greater bulk of its force of impact. I find it interesting that no one bothers to question this aspect of the story. Further, the typical "first response" when this is pointed out is that "the official version must be wrong." Yes. That's rather the point, I believe. And if you admit that THIS PIECE is incorrect--and it certainly seems so, given the photographic evidence we have, then why not other pieces?

* why were all the tapes confiscated (from other cameras in the area)? Even if they were taken to make copies of for analysis, why were they never returned or released? further, given the chaos of that day, and the slow response in OTHER areas of the investigation, why was confiscating tapes at remote camera sites given such a high priority that it was accomplished "within minutes" - that seems conveniently well orchestrated, even to those who are not wearing tinfoil hats. Sure, sure...stuff is routinely confiscated by the cops when it has bearing on an investigation. I just find it curious that the tapes were recovered with the speed and precision of a sting operation, when so many other aspects of the investigation were badly botched. But of course, anyone bringing this into question is obviously a liberal nut job, and dismissed as such.

* When the story first broke, the word was that it was a truck with a bomb that hit the Pentagon. Some 30 minutes after this report was issued, it was rescinded and the plane took center stage. I realize that it can sometimes, under trying-and-chaotic conditions, things can sometimes get blurry. I would think, however, that despite the chaotic conditions immediately following, a person of reasonable competence would be able to differentiate between a truck and an aircraft. Perhaps that is asking too much of our government officials, but I would hope not. I find it surprising that no one questions this element of the story.

Individually, none of these seem crucial, but when taken as a whole, they begin to paint a picture of uncertainty. Given that the government has hidden the truth from the public in the past, is it so unbelieveable that they may do so again? Given the holes in their "official version" of events, is it implausable that they are not the entire truth? And if not, then why the hostility toward those who question it?

I don't know what happened. I don't have a clue.

I can, however, come up with a theory with fewer logical holes than the official version, and do so without breaking a mental sweat.

Probably, we won't ever know what really happened on the morning of 9/11. Our government isn't honest enough OR forthcoming enough to come clean, no matter WHAT the bedrock truth might be.

-=Vel=-

[Serb]

Great post. You summarized things quite well.

[Capt Dizle]

I find it disturbing Vel, that you buy into this mess at all.

There was a report of a truck bomb at the capitol that proved groundless, why should we be concerned that someone assumed that a truck bomb was used at the Pentegon? After all, prior to 9/11, truck bombs were the big thing.

I find no problem with the idea that the plane may have grazed the ground at a slight angle before impact with the building. In such case I wouldn't expect much in the way of damage. Low odds, sure, but stuff happens.

So what if they didn't release all of the video. Given how vunerable we remain to this sort of attack, I can understand it.