StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/ ... urs_en.htm

If anyone finds the Boeing I'll believe that this wasn't a conspiracy.

I hope you are not serious in thinking there's a conspiracy.

I think the plane disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon.

To be serious something is wierd it took them at least six months before releasing images of this attack,and all we saw was an object moving at street level really fast.

Alot of those pictures are decieving, while I'm not completely sure about all this, they never give you a good look at the area that was hit.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I hope you are not serious in thinking there's a conspiracy.

Then were is the plane?

Montcalm wrote:
I think the plane disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon.

100 turns of metal dosen't suddenly disappear in any normal plane crash, or explosion. Last I checked, it takes a Nuke to make that much metal disapper.

Another thing, didn't this one fly around a lot more than the other, they went after one target and then switch to another and the Pentagon was a secondary target? Wouldn't that reduce the damage since it didn't have much fuel. Also look at the impacts on the World Trade Center, they weren't all that much, and there was a large fireball resulting from those. And the pictures with the outlined 747 seems to bee much too large.

Yeah, whatever.

I knew there was something wrong with you when you were convinced that flouride in drinking water was deadly. Now I know your barking.

Don't forget your tinfoil helmet when you check out, conspiracy nut...

The photos that they selected focus on the building - they don't show the pieces of airplane that littered the Pentagon's lawn while all this was going on (most of which were hauled out of the immediate area as quickly as possible so as not to pose a threat to the firefighters).

Remember, the aircraft in question struck ground BEFORE it hit the Pentagon - it's entirely probable that the wings ripped off before the fuselage hit the building.

What do you think happens to a 757 when it slams into a reinforced concrete building, which, by the way, has a designed liked spaced armor. You think an airplane that caused damage as far as the third ring is going to stay intact?

Also, the find the point of impact picture, it's covered up by water and smoke in both of those, and the building collapsed in that area, making a PoI harder to find, especially from those obstructed views.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Yeah, whatever.

I knew there was something wrong with you when you were convinced that flouride in drinking water was deadly. Now I know your barking.

Don't forget your tinfoil helmet when you check out, conspiracy nut...

Funny, you think after being at the boards this long you would know what an ad hominum attack is. Guess your just an idiot then.

Iceberg wrote:The photos that they selected focus on the building - they don't show the pieces of airplane that littered the Pentagon's lawn while all this was going on (most of which were hauled out of the immediate area as quickly as possible so as not to pose a threat to the firefighters).

Remember, the aircraft in question struck ground BEFORE it hit the Pentagon - it's entirely probable that the wings ripped off before the fuselage hit the building.

Is removing the debris actualy tampering with evidences.

phongn wrote:

What do you think happens to a 757 when it slams into a reinforced concrete building, which, by the way, has a designed liked spaced armor. You think an airplane that caused damage as far as the third ring is going to stay intact?

Reinforced concrete and treated stone. The Pentagon is one fucking tough building.

Montcalm wrote:

Iceberg wrote:The photos that they selected focus on the building - they don't show the pieces of airplane that littered the Pentagon's lawn while all this was going on (most of which were hauled out of the immediate area as quickly as possible so as not to pose a threat to the firefighters).

Remember, the aircraft in question struck ground BEFORE it hit the Pentagon - it's entirely probable that the wings ripped off before the fuselage hit the building.

Is removing the debris actualy tampering with evidences.

Not removing the debris to facilitate damage control and recovery operations.

Question #4: Looks to me like they are laying down a temporary road bed for heavy equipment, so it does not sink into the lawn. No real conspiracy there.

Question#3: A truck bomb should have destroyed or heavily damaged that small building on the lawn. It looks okay to me.

Isnt this the guy who is claiming the US actually shot a missile at the Pentagon???

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Funny, you think after being at the boards this long you would know what an ad hominum attack is. Guess your just an idiot then.

Whatever. I'm not the one who believes in insane/stupid conspiracies.

Iceberg wrote:

phongn wrote:

What do you think happens to a 757 when it slams into a reinforced concrete building, which, by the way, has a designed liked spaced armor. You think an airplane that caused damage as far as the third ring is going to stay intact?

Reinforced concrete and treated stone. The Pentagon is one fucking tough building.

Plus, it got hit in the section that just got extra-reinforced. Some consipracy loons might think that's just more evidence, but it's probably just a coincidence.

The Pentagon's tough design is indeed by design.

There is security camera footage, which shows it sliding into the building before exploding. Good enough for me along with hundreds of witness and a total lack of motive. Why the fuck put the aircraft/missile into the Pentagon rather then the senate or another office build? That would serve a government conspiracy far better.

The walls of the building are two feet thick and build of reinforced concrete and the debris punch through several of them. The outer walls also had a web of steel I beams attached for extra protection. The thing was build to withstand artillery fire and heavy aircraft bombs hitting it. The aircraft basically disinterested on impact with the parts crushed and melted. Anyone who believes the conspiracy theory is an utter moron.

Just to bring up some points, some of which have brought up already.


1. The plane hit the ground just before hitting the building.
2. The Pentagon is a very solid building, much stronger than modern ones.
3. There was airline debris clearly scattered among the area. Most is two small to be seen by the shots that site provides.
4. There exist camera footage of the plane crashing.
5. Poles and towers were damaged as the plane hit them, showing a clear path of destructive.
6. There were eyewitness accounts from all over the D.C./Arlington area.
7. These people are fucking idiots.

After the plane hit it they should had taken a few pictures,so they`ll be able to stick it in the face of conspiracy theorists.

Full of shit. The plane hit one of the sides of the Pentagon that had been recently renovated and reinforced to withstand terrorist bombs. The windows are IIRC 1.5" thick bullet resistant armored glass, and the entire structure is made of reinforced concrete designed to withstand a large truck bomb. You hit hardened structure like that with a plane and it'll snap the plane into a million pieces on impact, which is why you don't find any large plane pieces lying around.

Another thing to consider, a plane is the equivalent of a flying popcan, there ain't that much metal in a plane in the first place, and not much is going to survive a high speed impact. How much wreckage did you see in the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania? Barely any, crashing a plane at high speed shatters it into small chunks, and let's not forget that aluminum burns up at a pretty low temperature. Hold a propane torch to a piece of aluminum foil and you'll see it crinkle and soon crumple into dust. Remember that jet fuel burns pretty hot (about the same temp as that torch) and end result is that you'll have very little left by the time the fire's put out.

To summarize: The plane hit the hardened side of the Pentagon at high speed and shattered into a million little pieces, most of which were burned up by the high temperature jet fuel fire. Simple as that.

This conspiracy "theory" was debunked shortly after it was published on the 'net in 2001. Proponents of the theory merely put up a wall of ignorance and repeat "Where's the plane?"

Remember, the aircraft in question struck ground BEFORE it hit the Pentagon - it's entirely probable that the wings ripped off before the fuselage hit the building.

If the wings ripped off Jet fuel would have sprayed, and ignited, across the entire front lawn. You can clearly see that this isnt the case in the picture.

Not removing the debris to facilitate damage control and recovery operations.

You should still see some parts of the fueslage, I mean we're talking about over 100 tons of metal here. If the plane did indeed "bounce", ripping off the wings, then those parts of the plane should be visible in the picture; forward momentum dosen't just disappear.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Funny, you think after being at the boards this long you would know what an ad hominum attack is. Guess your just an idiot then.

Whatever. I'm not the one who believes in insane/stupid conspiracies.

Just the one who follows up my pointing out your ad hominum attack with an ad hominum attack. Try actually dealing with the arguement presented jackass.

Montcalm wrote:After the plane hit it they should had taken a few pictures,so they`ll be able to stick it in the face of conspiracy theorists.

Its not like there is a shortage of photos and video of the section still engulfed in flames. Which points out another already mentioned flaw in the stupid theory, if a missile hit it then why is there massive amounts of fire damage and a total lack of blast damage?

Snopes has a page on this, if anyone cares:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm