What do you think about this?:
Go to this website and watch this film.........do it quickly as it
has already been pulled off several web sites already!........afterwards you'll see why!
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
Can't do links yet, so you will have to copy the address.
[Edited on 28/4/06 by Confused but excited.]
there is alot wrong with that,
1. the smell of cordite, missile dont use cordite
2. the lack of wreckage can easily be explained as a normal plane crash doesnt involved a plane flying into a concrete structure at high speed it is
more similar to the video a while back of a military jet being flown into a concrete block, the only thing that wasnt atomised was the tips of the
wings that were wider than the block.
3. the explosion on impact looks very hollywood like meaning it almost certainly is a liquid fuel explosion not a missile playload explosion, if it
was a misssile then it wouldnt have then gone on to penetrate so far after having exploded.
4. the lack of damge around could be due to the speed the force of the damge was fowards not in all directions this would also be consistant with the
damage insisde as the shockwave would be conical so it could punch a hole ahead that was both fairly neat without leaving much wreckage. a missile
explosion would have blown half the building apart esp if it was a delayed explosion bunker buster style (which would be needed to cause that much
penetration)
4. the plane is basically made out of aluminium so it could easily have burnt away. (remember british ships in the falklands, the aluminium burnt
causing very hot but very quick and localised fires)
without all the evidence you cant prove it either way but most of the conspiracy stuff doesnt hold up very well
an airplane like a 757 leaves a noticeable trail whether it is made of aluminium, paper, or jelly. i think it is true that the lack of wreckage makes
you think twice about what really hit the pentagon. a 757 cant just "atomize", maybe the fuselage, but what about the plastic stuff in the
interior? or the landing gear, or the 5000 gallons or so of kerosene?
the video is a bit over the top but it hink it has some good points to it. it's not like those pathetic rumors about man never setting foot on
the moon, that it was staged....absolutely bollocks!
Just a point, but you are incorrect in point 4. above. Aluminium in the form of plate, sheet, foils, extrusions etc. does not burn or support
combustion. Concerning the Falklands, this is a popular misconception. The Defence white paper published in december 1982 concluded that "there
is no evidence that aluminium has contributed to the loss of any vessel".
Simon
quote:
Originally posted by robertst
an airplane like a 757 leaves a noticeable trail whether it is made of aluminium, paper, or jelly. i think it is true that the lack of wreckage makes you think twice about what really hit the pentagon. a 757 cant just "atomize", maybe the fuselage, but what about the plastic stuff in the interior? or the landing gear, or the 5000 gallons or so of kerosene?
quote:
Originally posted by asn163
Just a point, but you are incorrect in point 4. above. Aluminium in the form of plate, sheet, foils, extrusions etc. does not burn or support combustion. Concerning the Falklands, this is a popular misconception. The Defence white paper published in december 1982 concluded that "there is no evidence that aluminium has contributed to the loss of any vessel".
Simon
Aluminium certainly burns if it gets hot enough. Its a very reactive metal once the oxide coating is removed.
David
[Edited on 28/4/06 by flak monkey]
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...but if I recall my chemistry lessons correctly thermite is a mix of iron oxide and aluminium....thermite seems to burn ok.
same idea but thermite has aluminium powder which is quite easy to burn due to high surface area/volume ratio. alu in other forms is much hars but still possible given enough activation energy.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
quote:
Originally posted by robertst
an airplane like a 757 leaves a noticeable trail whether it is made of aluminium, paper, or jelly. i think it is true that the lack of wreckage makes you think twice about what really hit the pentagon. a 757 cant just "atomize", maybe the fuselage, but what about the plastic stuff in the interior? or the landing gear, or the 5000 gallons or so of kerosene?
Wanna bet?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1556575484235720126
Most plane crashes are different in the fact that the plane just hits the ground too hard and falls apart. If you crash a plane head on into something solid, theres not going to be much of it left at all, especially if the plane is moving at speed. The fuel adds the the effect of consuing anything thats left.
OOOPS!
I didn't mean to start a controversy but while we are on about conspiracies, someone mentioned the moon landings;
True or False?
For independant evidence, check the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts. Then check how much lead shielding is required to prevent radiation
sickness at these levels.
Then check how effective thin aluminium is, as opposed to this much lead.
Discuss.
[Edited on 30/4/06 by Confused but excited.]
thats been hammered to death last time we had the conspiracy thread, theres an obvious explanation for any point you care to make 
Ah! A patriot.
Let me see now.....
Has anyone read 'The Da Vinci Code?
Yeah, bloody good it was too.
Also read Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point (in about 2 weeks). All a great read AFAIC
If you want another good read (and think like me that global warming is an excuse for Gordon to raise tax), then I'd recommend "State of
Fear" by Michael (Jurassic Park) Crichton.
ATB
Simon
Read 'Angels and Demons' bloody good.
( Spoiled my next question tho' )
M.C. is brilliant. They missed so much out of Jurrasic Park in the film. For instance, the mathematician's role wasn't explained.
The explanation, in the book, of Chaos Theory was the best that I've seen and the easiest to understand.
[Edited on 4/5/06 by Confused but excited.]
when the plane hit the second tower the plane was totally absorbed into the tower. the plane would have entered the pentagon in a similar way and
burned up in the blaze.
atb
steve
One thing that people often miss is the fact that fuel/fire/explosives are not actually required to produce massive heat in an impact. A large amount
of the kinetic energy involved is simply converted to heat and it's this that causes vapourisation on impact. Take the recent deep impact space
mission as an example - a 300 odd kg lump of cold metal hit a cold comet. No fuel or explosives involved yet the impact created temperatures of 1000s
degrees and vapourised the impacter and part of the comet.
A 757 at 500mph has enough energy without a fuel explosion to be largely vapourised in an impact, just like that Phantom hitting a wall (which
actually is made of the same materials as a 757). The exploding fuel was just a bonus
Another example of what these conspiracy theories all have in common - the conspiracy woo-woos simply dont understand what's going on, and have
big enough egos to think that since they must be correct, something fishy is going on and the evil government is lying.
LIam
Try to keep up.
We have finished with that one and the moon landings, we are now on to Jesus' wife and...... Michael Chriton; Does he really exist?