Why does the magic bullet still get more attention than the Magic Plane?

[homelandpunk]

Recently I heard one of the professional skeptics from Skeptic magazine on a local radio show and he was asked to debunk the facts of the pentagon crash to dispel "those wild rumors" on the internet. So he said since planes don't disappear with all the crew and passengers, it had to be the plane that hit the Pentagon. Not something smaller.
Kee-riced, what logic.
Let's see, his Professional Skeptic brains tells him that the plane must have - what? - reduced in size as it came in to hit the Pentagon. That is what you HAVE to hold forth...but they won't say it like that. They will simply repeat "planes and crew and passengers do not JUST dissapear".
Well, large passenger jets do not JUST defy all physical laws and shrink in size (did the humans on board shrink as well?) in the air before hitting.
The lack of all evidence for a plane the size of flight 11 to be the projectile that slammed into the side of the pentagon is so unassailable that is it is completely science fact. Political and human cowardice keeps this unassailable evidence from major investigation, much less discussion.
If someone fires back "Well then what happened to the passengers and crew??!!"
My answer would be "Well, according to you, the plane shrunk in mid-air, since there was no report at take off that the plane had shrunk yet, so at some point during the flight I guess the crew and passengers shrunk also in some defiance of physical laws, and after having shrunk, they all died in a fiery impact that destroyed all evidence of their amazing newly shrunken plane and newly shrunken bodies." For the intellectual cowards, this is your theory. Good luck with it.
When I say intellectual cowardice, perhaps I should just call it sheer terror....which is why even here, you see more discussion of the Kennedy assassination and theories about the magic bullet, and very little discussed regarding the magic plane. It is so scary, professional skeptics refuse to think logically about what it was NOT, and what it could NOT have been. Now that is some real fear. It is easy to get our minds around the magic bullet crap... but this...well, this is like staring into the abyss. It might stare back at you.
I think this deserves MUCH more attention than the 40 year old magic bullet.

[LoZoccolo]

1. It is?

The lack of all evidence for a plane the size of flight 11 to be the projectile that slammed into the side of the pentagon is so unassailable that is it is completely science fact. Political and human cowardice keeps this unassailable evidence from major investigation, much less discussion.

This is the part we'd need to know more about before we would even begin to believe it, and you completely gloss over it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[homelandpunk]

30. I do not believe in shrinking planes. Why would anyone?

But if you believe it was the passenger jet, then you HAVE to believe it shrunk. Pretty silly to believe that. I will go with the evidence that tells me it was something smaller than to be logically foolish and naive.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[homelandpunk]

34. HERE is your footprint

http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html

please note point A on the first pictures.

Then tell me it was the Boeing.

Another thing, your trying to explain that the wings came off, am I to understand? You said
<<It is an absolutely impossibility, that the wings would have remained attached to the fuselage during such a deceleration.>>

You just made your case even harder...where are these wings?

[Fescue4u]

37. Its not my case

its the way it happened. The only way that it could happen.

the wings PIVOTED forward and then proceeded into the crash along with the rest of the fuselage.

Did you know that they are filled with fuel? They hold proably 10x to 50x their weigh in aviation fuel. Once they impacted the building (close to the main body of fuselage), they were shredded, melted, and burned and then later shoveled up.

Im sure that are pieces of them left, most of them no larger than a cigarette pack.

[homelandpunk]

39. now look at the link I provided

Again, the very first picture...the comparison picture, point A.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html
Why won't you believe your eyes?

[Fescue4u]

40. Thank you.

The pictures confirm what I wrote.

[homelandpunk]

42. wow...that was disingenuous

So....can you explain the picture and what you are looking at? And how it confirms <snicker> what you wrote?

[Fescue4u]

43. I could

In fact I did.

Clearly you don't understand.

(edited to add)

Try this experiment. GO outside and find a tree. Now go back about 100ft.
Hold out your arms like an airplane (like when you where a kid), now run as fast as you can directly into the tree.

What you'll find is that your arms swing forward rapidly as your face bashes into the tree.

Now imagine that at 500mph and with your arms as long as baseball field.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

45. *SNARF* (nt)

[Fescue4u]

46. translation is:

"He's got the facts to back himself up. But I like my story better, facts be damned"

[Wonk]

47. http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[homelandpunk]

52. haha...you're kidding

The very first thing on the the site I pointed you to was the earliest shots of the point of impact, with physical evidence, comparisons, and solid evidence of BS. You send me to a site whose very first thing is this:
<<<Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.>>>
OK, that settles it for me...
kee-riced.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hailtothechimp]

17. In all of the pictures I have seen of the pentagon I have never seen...

wings. Have you? You must be aware that planes can't fly without them.

If you have any links from the "mountain of evidence" that show any wings please post them.

[Fescue4u]

19. of course I have.

You need to understand the construction of an aircraft and the physics involved.

Aircraft have design limits, when those limits are exceeded (speed), frequently the first thing that happens is a wing snaps off. Many stunt pilots have died in EXACTLY this manner. It a bit more uncommon in commerical aircraft though, because the pilots rarely crash them on purpose, nor do "stunts"

Obviously, Aircraft are not designed to go from 600mph to 0 instantly. When the nose of the aircraft hit the cement wall it decelerated EXTREMELY rapidly, perhaps 100,000x its design limitations. At that point the wings broke off at the rear point of the fuselage, tearing forward creating a pivoting effect which swung the outer tips of the wings into a much narrower footprint. Even if that did not happen, the outer reaches of the wings have FAR FAR less mass than any other part of the aircraft

There's your answer. But I know you won't believe it, and now you believe that Im part of the conspiracy that is out to get you.

Better check your windows, I think a black helicopter is hovering.

[Hailtothechimp]

23. Nobody said anything about helicopters. I just asked to see wings.

When the space shuttle exploded, no effort was spared to get those pieces and assemble them somewhere. But the plane that hit the pentagon, a much smaller debris field, did not get the same attention. Isn't that at least a little bit curious?

[Fescue4u]

24. Neither shuttle exploded.

Both broke up due to aerodynamic forces caused by orbiters misalignment with the prevailing airflow. In the first accident, the explosion of the tank caused the misalignment.
In the 2nd, the left wing was destroyed by re-entry, which then caused the orbiter to go out of control (and become mis-aligned with the airflow)

As such, the pieces were not consumed in fire.

Nonethess, the REASON that no expense was spared in collecting shuttle parts, was that this was huge factor in determining what happened to it. (that and many of the pieces were toxic)

In the case of the Pentagon, no engineering analysis was necessary to know that a nutter flew it into the building.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hailtothechimp]

28. The way bu$h is stonewalling the commission...

I rather doubt it. And in your heart of hearts, so do you.

[Fescue4u]

33. Perhaps not

But to believe that something else his the pentagon is ridiculous given the evidence.

[homelandpunk]

35. you don't know your evidence...you are talking about wings falling off

in an earlier post. So don't talk about "evidence" without providing some.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hailtothechimp]

48. Don't need to because you can't

And the helicopters line wasn't any more convincing the second time you used it.

[Fescue4u]

49. chop chop chop chop chop

They're coming to get cha!

lmao

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

51. Look, I've stated the facts

and you have danced around with ludicrous, half baked theories that no one with half a brain believes.

At this point there is no more to discuss. Either you believe in physics and engineering or you believe in fairy tales.

Either is fine, My children, as do you love fairy tales.

Beyond that, I think we just have to stick to our own realities.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

55. goodnite

troll

[Hailtothechimp]

56. Still no wings.

Show them to me and I'll shut up. But until then, your assertion that you somehow "understand things" that I don't isn't holding any water.

Go ahead and do a little hocus pocus and throw out a few words to give the illusion you know something. I won't buy it, but go ahead.

No pictures of the Pentagon on 9/11 suggest any wings. They didn't just melt or varorize. They never existed that I can tell.

And where is the black box of this supposed plane? Has anybody ever discussed that? If so, I've never heard about it. Let me guess, it's not supposed to withstand the sudden deceleration and the drop in atmospheric pressure and the phases of the moon and whatever other "scientific facts" you're going to throw at me.

[Fescue4u]

60. Go to an airport sometime.

You'll find that all airplanes have wings.

Better yet, get your teachers permission and checkout a book from the school library on airplanes. You'll see that Im right.

Black boxes are very resililant but not indestructible. The one at the Pentagon was found, however only a small amount of data was recovereable from it.

btw, it doesnt matter what I know, but it is amusing to watch you show how much you don't know.

[maggrwaggr]

26. fer chrissakes there's video of the plane hitting the pentagon

for those of you who weren't paying attention

[Hailtothechimp]

27. you mean the four frames that the pentagon selected?

Not very convincing for me. Why not release the whole thing if it's so conclusive?

[mobuto]

58. Um,

because a plane traveling at upwards of 600 mph wouldn't appear on more than 2 frames, at most. Do the math.

[FDRrocks]

41. I don't really care either way...

but I think the question, given certain sets of photos, is: Where are the piecees of the plane?

[SheilaT]

4. Well, for one thing it was

American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. American Airlines flight 11 hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. You ought to at least be able to keep track of which plane you're claiming didn't crash.

But if something else was substituted, where are the passengers and crew? Where is the plane itself?

You have no idea what tiny pieces a plane breaks up into when it impacts something at high speed. Often nothing much bigger than a fist is left over, and that was pretty much the case with all four of the planes that crashed that day.

"The lack of all evidence for a plane the size of flight 11 to be the projectile that slammed into the side of the pentagon is so unassailable that is it is completely science fact." You simply don't know what you are talking about.

[karlschneider]

6. Maybe all 4 of them shrank.

:eyes:
Jeezus, you can read all sorts of crazy shit even here at DU.

;-)

[homelandpunk]

31. None of them shrunk. One is unaccounted for.

Kee-riced...I am giving the only explanation left, to show what a stupid theory you must believe. This is not my theory...if you believe flight 11 struck the pentagon, then it is your theory.
If it is not, then please, explain the MAJOR discrepancies and natural-law defying physical anomalies involved that could explain the total BS put forth in the official story.

[RC]

9. I don't know where you get your information from,

but it doesn't jell with reality. Whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757. The two engines on a 757 are almost five feet across & six tons each. These engines are fan jets. The only engine parts found at the site was not from a fan jet, it was from a military plane. We also have a missing engine. Jet engines being rather massive, usually survive the crash more or less intact. Or at least with the major pieces intact. The passenger seats usually survive intact also. Has anyone seen any pictures of any passenger seats at the Pentagon? Pieces? Anything?
Any pictures of identifiable plane parts allegedly taken at the pentagon are usually cropped so close they could have been sitting on a workbench anywhere in he world when the picture was taken.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Part of this and the World Trade Center conspiracy theories is...

...they rely on reports of data too obscure for laymen to really get their hands on to make a decision one way or the other. Someone comes along, looks like they've got a lot of special data about the site, and lure people in to believing something they just don't have the data or engineering expertise to discredit.

[LoZoccolo]

11. And then...

...once someone puts enough emphasis on whether or not there's any real evidence of the conspiracy, there's always the fallback of "you just don't want to believe what this would mean if it was true."

[Fescue4u]

21. EXACTLY!

Not only that, these conspiracy fantasys rely on "common sense". However in cases of "extreme engineering", as I'll call it, common sense no longer applies. Indeed the factors involved are well beyond the common knowledge of most people.

[RobinA]

12. So Where's Flight 77?

What about the people who saw it hit?

[Padraig18]

13. Proof of your assertions?

I see a lot of stuff thrown out, but no links to evidence. Conspiracy theorists have the enviable position of being able to assail evidence, while providing none of their own. :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

15. I have not seen conclusive proof of a 757 hitting the Pentagon either.

Not sure why this evidence hasn't been shared with the public. Seems like it would be in everyone's interest to have the irrefutable proof that shows wreckage of 77. I did see the single compressor fan pic....but is this proof?

And what about that 12' diameter hole in "C" ring....what made that and where did that artifact go?

Also, anyone know what happened with the wreckage? I assume that the parts are collected/stored somewhere as evidence...this wasn't sold as srap, I presume. And what about the tape from the gas station? I believe that caught the plane on film....why can't that be released?

[Padraig18]

5. Oh, great!

Just what we need--- another :tinfoilhat: conspiracy theory. :eyes:

[Wonk]

8. Imho, some of these are intentionally propagated in order to

discredit "conspiracy theorists" in general. Of course, that's just a theory...

As to this one, imho, it's complete bunk.

If anyone is interested in reading the many many times it's been discussed here just search the DU 9/11 forum for "Pentagon".

[Minstrel Boy]

14. absolutely agree, Wonk

The deck's already stacked against us thanks to the dominant culture's successful debasing of the term "conspiracy" to the level of paranoid delusion. And nothing poisons the well like the promotion of a self-evident absurdity. LIHOPers and MIHOPers are suckers if we fall for it, and playing into the hands of the conspirators. It's worse than a distraction. It crushes our efforts to get a fair hearing.

[Fescue4u]

22. Now THAT I'll agree with

I do believe that conspiracys exist, however loon theories like these discredit legit conspiracys.

Real conspiracys are simpler, but more insiduous in nature.

In this case, what is the best way to make the public think that a large aircraft hit the Pentagon? Simple, fly a large aircraft into it.

To do anything else requires unnecessary effort and risk.

[Yupster]

29. There's a conspiracy to discredit

the conspiracies.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[homelandpunk]

36. no!! not THAT line!!! not the "what are you smoking?" line! nnnn-NOOO!!

I'm laid waste. You win.

[MrPrax]

16. Maybe a Magic Bus!!

'...too much for The Magic Bus...?'



http://members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/explosion.htm
This page is a hoot...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. This is disinformation designed to discredit 911 skeptics

The airliner crashing into the Pentagon was witnessed by a large number of people, one of which I interviewed personally a week after 911. The purpose of floating crazy nonsense about "no plane hitting the Pentagon" is specifically made to discredit people who are skeptical of Bush's failure to act on 911 and his coverup afterwards.

[mobuto]

57. Designed to discredit you?

This is all hokum, but I appreciate your hubris.

Because before anybody would want to discredit y'all, they'd have to take you seriously. And the sad fact, nobody does, because its clear beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt that Al Qaeda loonies were responsible for the events of the 11th of September, and those few who refuse to accept the obvious are not worth dealing with.

There is no massive conspiracy out to get you, because, frankly, nobody really cares what you think. Its sad, its harsh, but its reality.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. designed to discredit the families of 911 victims for one

I happen to believe that "AL Qaeda" loonies were behind 911, and I don't like disinformation being spread to confuse the issue about the clear failure of Bush before and after 911 to protect the country from terrorists. Bush has been covering up his connections to Saudi terrorist finaciers, the Bin Laden family, and Pakistani intelligence agencies, all who have suspicious connections to 911.

But spreading stories about "no plane hitting the Pentagon" is designed specifically so people like you will react negatively to anything that deviates from the administration line. Disinformation is very effective.