For some time after 9/11/2001 various sources have claimed that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane. There are disproofsaround, including eyewitness accounts somewhere, but that isn't the point of this post.This animation finally prompted me to ask. What are these people trying to get at? Every one of these I've seen just wave their arms about going "Ooooh, spooky conspiracy" hinting that the whole thing was faked. But that doesn't make sense.
Are they trying to say that the government suddenly decided to bomb its own building because thousands of people getting killed at a higher-profile target isn't good enough? Or that it was the government that orchestrated the whole thing, flying airplanes into the towers but bombing the Pentagon just for fun? And of course the person ordered to fire upon DoD headquarters just obeyed without blinking an eye and never spoke a word of it since, just like all conspirators . Try as I might, I can't figure out a plausible reason for a conspiracy to make the US military attack its own headquarters, especially when all possible results have already been brought about elsewhere. What are these people trying to prove?
"If the government did this, just imagine what else it could have done!"
The point they're trying to get across is that the govenment was responsible for 9/11. They weren't able to do anything with the WTC attacks (not that for lack of trying), so they're left with the only thing left available to them: The Pentagon attack.
They're just hoping you too ignore the logic which contradicts their theory.
"A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open."
-Sir James Dewar
It's mostly the same conspiracy shit that surrounds the JFK assasination, the Liberty Incident, and so many other events. It's morons that can't understand the evidence and/or think that any unanswered question must mean sinister intention. There's nothing more substantial than idiocy at work.
Of course it's funny to me that so many people can be so utterly taken in by the BS. The World Trade Center was hidiously vulnerable because of it's unique design, to the point where more than a few of the investagtor have questioned whether any other building would have actually fallen. On the other the Pentagon was a squat behemoth of reinforced concrete.
Ah, but the theorists will point out that only 2 of 5 wedges were reinforced at the time and isn't it a coincidence that the "plane" hit a reinforced side?
At that point, I beat them with their own shoes.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
I love the 'where's the wreckage' angle. Really, look at what happens to an airliner when it hits an empty field, there isn't much left that looks like an airplane. Now consider what would happen if it hit a giant, reinforced office building, that subsequently caught on fire and partially collapsed. And 757s really aren't that big anyhow, atleast compaired to a '67 or any widebody jet.
I just saw a video making this claim. The main evidence was the small hole after impact and the fact that the sections of the building only collapsed awhile after the plane hitting. *shrugs* I dunno what to make of it, but it seems to make sense to me. They didn't go into the whole "the government did it" angle, it was just saying that it doesn't seem to be a plane.
Hm. The video also pointed at an explosion northwest of the WTC towers that was "shown once, during a phone interview with Tom Clancy (on... CNN, I think), then NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN! *gasp*", and went through this huge thing about how the planes that hit the building didn't look like commercial airliners (At some points, it was just "look at that blown up pixel! Doesn't it look like it might be something strange?"... but not all of it was like that.).
Anyway, to answer the OP, there's always people (the kind who talk to God on two-way radios, the kind with guns and ski masks living in the midwest) who are just looking for an excuse to hate the government, and convince everyone else to do the same. *shrugs*
Tugging a rhythm to the vision that's in my head
Tugging a beat to the sight of you lying
So delighted with a new understanding
Something about a little evil that makes that
Unmistakable noise I was hearing
Unmistakable sound that I know so well
Spent and sighing with a look in your eye
Spent and sighing with a look on your face like
Quadlok wrote:I love the 'where's the wreckage' angle. Really, look at what happens to an airliner when it hits an empty field, there isn't much left that looks like an airplane. Now consider what would happen if it hit a giant, reinforced office building, that subsequently caught on fire and partially collapsed. And 757s really aren't that big anyhow, atleast compaired to a '67 or any widebody jet.
The planes used in the 9/11 attacks were 767 widebodies.
Quadlok wrote:I love the 'where's the wreckage' angle. Really, look at what happens to an airliner when it hits an empty field, there isn't much left that looks like an airplane. Now consider what would happen if it hit a giant, reinforced office building, that subsequently caught on fire and partially collapsed. And 757s really aren't that big anyhow, atleast compaired to a '67 or any widebody jet.
The planes used in the 9/11 attacks were 767 widebodies.
The ones that hit the towers were. The one that hit the Pentagon was a '57, atleast according to that video linked in the OP.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Ah, but the theorists will point out that only 2 of 5 wedges were reinforced at the time and isn't it a coincidence that the "plane" hit a reinforced side?
So what? They had a 40% chance of hitting one of the reinforced sides, that's reasonable enough odds for them to be unlucky.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:At that point, I beat them with their own shoes.
I'd suggest a good tire iron.
Quadlok wrote:I love the 'where's the wreckage' angle. Really, look at what happens to an airliner when it hits an empty field, there isn't much left that looks like an airplane. Now consider what would happen if it hit a giant, reinforced office building, that subsequently caught on fire and partially collapsed. And 757s really aren't that big anyhow, atleast compaired to a '67 or any widebody jet.
Not to mention as anyone that's thrown a pop can in a campfire can attest to aluminum burns.
. Try as I might, I can't figure out a plausible reason for a conspiracy to make the US military attack its own headquarters, especially when all possible results have already been brought about elsewhere. What are these people trying to prove?
