Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on September 03, 2004, 03:51:54 PM
-
The threads that keep getting locked and erased are about that wackjob Pentagon conspiracy theory video. Or... I think they are... If you do a search using the word "pentagon" you get a few threads that say "nothing to see here" and there really isn't. The content is gone...
Gotta say... the vid is nicely done.
Still... I felt the bile rise in my throat. I worked in Crystal City at the time and the I could feel the anger building almost to the point where I could scream at this monitor or just shut it off and walk away... but I watched it.
It's an odd thing really... there aren't a great number of things that make me instantly furious. This is apparently one of them.
-
what's is about?
-
I'll send you a link. I'm not going to post it here.
-
Send me one too please.
-
Done
-
Thanks Sandman, was interesting. If not a 757 then what?
And more importantly, why lie about it? They offer no reason or theory as to why.
-
It is BS conspiracy theorist garbage.
The people on that plane were real and did not simply disappear. That video is trash and those who produced it are idiots. Only the gullible believe such drivel.
A good debunking is found here:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
You guys should love that it was started by a Frenchman. Though in fairness at least one French paper slammed it in a review as being garbage.
-
Yeah... I've seen the website before... I didn't experience the same reaction to it as the video though.
-
Is this the 'OMFG WHERE IS TEH PLAIN A KRUZ MISSALE HIT THE PENTAGONE!!' video?
-
If you want the link, I'll send it.
Of course, if this thread becomes as shrill as the others, it will be locked, I think.
-
I dont think I need it - seen it if its the UK one.
-
Okay.
-
Sandy can you email it to me at gtora2@gmail.com
-
Sandman,
The website I link was a debunking, not a site that supported the crazies.
-
Done
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Sandman,
The website I link was a debunking, not a site that supported the crazies.
Exactly... it debunks the site that started this nonsense.
-
Thanks Sandman!
-
can you e-mail the link to me?
david.weeks@gmail.com
-
Yea I went at it with one of these conspirrcay nuts who brought that garbage here a few days ago.
It was pretty hillarious, at one point he suggested that the WTC attcaks were done using real Boeings so that the people in DC would be predisposed to belive that real Boeings hit the pentagon instead of a much smaller plane. Yes it makes just that little sense..
He was also pointing us to websites that posted interviesw with, and I'm not kidding, space Aliens that they say were involved in making the real flight 77 and her passengers dissapear into a 4th dimension..
What can you say... :rofl
-
you should see the crap at http://www.physics911.org
They have it all mapped out how the govt...reroted all planes involved to PA...put all the passengers on the plane that crashed in Somerset (to get rid of em) and either used military pilots or remote control to crash the planes into the buildings....I posted on there and told 'em what I thought of their "theories"
They have the whole pentagon thing figured out too :rolleyes:
Physics911 (http://www.physics911.org)
-
i have 100 mb free space
flakbait_04@yahoo.com
-
Thanks Sandman. I just got home and watched it.
Gotta love conspiracy theories....
-
Can yah send me a link sandman, only if you think a 16yr old should watch it though...
Check profile for E-mail..
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Can yah send me a link sandman, only if you think a 16yr old should watch it though...
Check profile for E-mail..
Sorry! That user has specified that they do not wish to receive emails through this board. If you still wish to send an email to this user, please contact the administrator and they may be able to help
-
Bah....
Just a sec...
-
If this blows your top, as it does mine, see what they have to say about the Nick Berg beheading. :mad:
-
Originally posted by United
If this blows your top, as it does mine, see what they have to say about the Nick Berg beheading. :mad:
Saw that too... didn't have the same affect on me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Saw that too... didn't have the same affect on me.
Right, it didnt bother me as much as the 9/11 video, but it still pisses me off in addition to...
-
You can find it at http://www.ebaumsworld.com.
-
I looked at this with an open mind, and they got some evidence, and the picture they showd of the 'missle' looks alot like a smaller plane, but it could be a 757 as it's going 530mph and is going to look stretched, and it's possible, as we all know, to fly 2 feet off the ground for about 5 secs, and the place disentagrated, thus, if I could draw I'd draw what would of happend...
But the fuselauge went through like a bullet, creating a vaccum, sucking in the wings and the engines, and exploding like it did..
Is the above statement possible?
-
This just in... aluminum burns.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... aluminum burns.
lol, so true. :)
How many plane parts exists from the WTC?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
lol, so true. :)
How many plane parts exists from the WTC?
Thankfully they got the WTC attacks on tape. Otherwhise you would have websites claiming there were no planes there either..
-
Aluminum...
Atomic Number: 13 Atomic Radius: 143.1 pm
Atomic Symbol: Al Melting Point: 1220.576°F
Atomic Weight: 26.98154 Boiling Point: 4566.2ºF
Electron Configuration: [Ne]3s23p1 Oxidation States: 3
I don't think the fire could of gotten that hot, umm, but the fire dosn't need to be that hot to cause the temp of it to rise to that degree...
-
Hmmm... It's good that I never saw the numbers before I burned aluminum cans in camp fires. I might not have thought I could do it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Aluminum...
Atomic Number: 13 Atomic Radius: 143.1 pm
Atomic Symbol: Al Melting Point: 1220.576°F
Atomic Weight: 26.98154 Boiling Point: 4566.2ºF
Electron Configuration: [Ne]3s23p1 Oxidation States: 3
I don't think the fire could of gotten that hot, umm, but the fire dosn't need to be that hot to cause the temp of it to rise to that degree...
He said aluminum burns, has nothing to do with melting or boiling points. Toss a coke can into a camp fire and see what happens after a few minutes. It begins to get black and char. The same thing happened at the Pentagon, only faster because of the higher temperatures. Therefore, it would be difficult to locate aluminum pieces just from pictures.
DOH sandman, ya beat me to it!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... It's good that I never saw the numbers before I burned aluminum cans in camp fires. I might not have thought I could do it. ;)
Burned coke cans too, I just couldn't find the burn temp... :o
Of course the cans are thinner, so it wouldn't be as quick...
-
I hear that Micheal Moore is a 'documentary' producer also.
I still don't believe that either.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
I hear that Micheal Moore is a 'documentary' producer also.
I still don't believe that either.
Propaganda is just one form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film)
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Of course the cans are thinner, so it wouldn't be as quick...
youd be surprised actually. Aircraft aluminum skins are not very thick at all. Granted, they are thicker than an aluminum can, but think about it. A campfire burns at much less of a temperature than an aviation gas fueled fire. So, Id bet that the aluminum from the plane burned rather quickly no matter how thick.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Propaganda is just one form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film)
Sorry Sandman. Just like taking candy from strangers I don't click links from people that I don't trust ;)
Just be forewarned that I've forwarded you name to the Republican Youth 'Club' for re-education.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
only if you think a 16yr old should watch it though...
:)
-
:confused:-Grunz
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
:confused:-Grunz
Yes?
-
Geez, why not just release the film from the other video cameras.
-
Sandy,
Can I get a link to the film too?
nawcdgreen@yahoo.com
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
But the fuselauge went through like a bullet, creating a vaccum, sucking in the wings and the engines, and exploding like it did..
Is the above statement possible?
"Aircraft wings have two main structural components beneath their aluminum skin. Spars are ultra-rigid metal beams that support a series of ribs that give shape to the wing. The main spar, a piece of solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high at the center of the aircraft. The main spar runs out almost to the end of both wings and therefore varies in height with the thickness of the wing. Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete the main structural support of the wings.
Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, spars and ribs, wings are otherwise hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally flexible. In other words, a wing may flex along its length when an aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off. Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic failure and the loss of a wing.
Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon."
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3
-
So Thrawn..you are saying you belive these nutjobs? I need FACTUAL evidence to dubunk what is now accepted as the truth..Physics911 doesn't offer that. Has anyone tried to recreate an aircraft hitting a building? Especially one as strongly built as the pentagon? And their security camera video....That camera is LOW resolution and has a slow framerate...The Aircraft moved far to fast to get a good picture of it..much less a clear one. It's sad that people devote their entire lives trying to spread hate and work against whoever is in powerr. I may have posted in here my hatred for a particular group on this board in the past, but I'm not dropping my life to promote it. F-em' and whoever on here believes that video.
-
Coolridr, can you actually refute any of the statements made in the three paragraphs I quoted?
Whether or not you think there are nutjobs is irrelevant, that's just an ad hominum fallacy. If a nutjob said, "The sun appears to rise in the east because the Earth rotates clockwise when viewed from above the north pole.", would he necessarily be wrong but virtue of being a nutjob? Of course not.
Like I said if you can refute any of the statements in the three paragraphs go for it, I would love to learn.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Geez, why not just release the film from the other video cameras.
What other cameras? The only source I have seen claiming there are other cameras is this bizzare conspiracy theory video.
Why do you take what they say at face value? Why accept it so readily?
After you adress that Thrawn question please take a look at this from the article you linked. Here they claim the engines found in the pentagon were too small to be 757 engines.
They use these pictures as evidence:
(http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/f1-engine.jpg)
(http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/f2-engine.jpg)
The engines used by the Boeing 757 are similar to the Pratt and Whitney engine shown below (PW 2003) and have the same dimensions, being nearly three meters in diameter, more than twice the diameter of the engine shown above.
(http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/pw2000.jpg)
Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757
Do you see the problem with their evidence?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What other cameras? The only source I have seen claiming there are other cameras is this bizzare conspiracy theory video.
What...therefore they don't exist? Perhaps, perhaps not. I certainly should be pretty easy to verify that they don't.
Why do you take what they say at face value? Why accept it so readily?
Who, the video? I don't. I'll accept the cameras because it's so easy to verify. I'll discount most of the eye witness testimony because eye witness testimony is so notoriously screwed.
After you adress that Thrawn question please take a look at this from the article you linked. Here they claim the engines found in the pentagon were too small to be 757 engines.
Do you see the problem with their evidence? [/B]
I see a typo. The 757 does use the PW2000 engine. It's demenisons are the same.
http://www.pw.utc.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp
I quoted the site because I thought it had a good explanation why specifically Hawklore's senario couldn't happen. And that explanation still stands, unless you can point out how it's wrong.
-
:rolleyes:
Nutjobs they may be, TF engine designers they are not. Maybe someone should point out that a large Turbofan engine is more than a big fan thing on the front and empty space behind.
(http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/pw2000_cutaway_low.jpg)
Gatso
-
Bingo gatso! I was going to post that same graphic..
You see Thrawn they show one componet of the destroyed engine and then say the pentagon engine is too small because it it isnt as big as the whole, intact, non crashed, fan in front.
That's a pretty damning mistake for a website that claims so much scientific thought... They are either using people who are totaly ignorant about what they are talking about aor they are lying through their teeth and hoping btheir audience doesnt know the difference..
Originally posted by Thrawn
What...therefore they don't exist? Perhaps, perhaps not. I certainly should be pretty easy to verify that they don't.
Well I want more sources than that video before I even begin to consider anything else but dissmissing it out of hand.
-
It's been 20 years since I worked on a Turbofan engine, however on the GE TF34 (used on the S-3a/b and the A-10) the fan is connected by a shaft to a high pressure turbine, while the compressor is connected to a low pressure turbine.
The turbines are physically located aft of the combustion chamber and forward of the exhaust tailpipe.
In the 1st picture shown in GRUNHERZ's post you are looking a one of the turbines, not the FAN.
(http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/f1-engine.jpg)