Popular Mechanics Attempts to Discredit 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists"

Ok, so explain this picture, know-it-all.



As far as the quote, what I meant was that was just one of the many "non-Boeing" quotes (I never alluded to it being valid). It was the most easily disputable one. There are other eyewitness reports of people who did not see a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well. You misread what I wrote.

 

Then where are the pictures of this debris? Show me the pictures of the wing, fuselage, tail, landing gear or engines. I don't care where they are, just show me the pictures.

All I can say is that if people want to ingore they key facts, they should either put up or shut up.

The fact is, no discernable wreckage can be seen in front of the Pentagon. Period. Not on the lawn, nor immediately in front of the Pentagon. A building does not just swallow a plane whole while leaving only a 16 ft. diameter hole, and without leaving any wreckage behind.

Even the planes that hit the trade towers left a big enough hole to swallow most of the planes, yet they still left debris on the ground below.

Again, you misread what I wrote. I was alluding to it being "just one" of the many "no-Boeing" quotes (this one also being taken out of context and altered). Not all of the no-Boeing quotes were that refutable, yet you failed to include any of those.

Why would the government be stupid enough to attempt to fly a huge plane like a 757 into a building as short as the Pentagon. Even doing it by remote control would likely prove very difficult. They would likely risk more of a chance by using a 757 and unsucessfully slamming into the Pentagon.

 

Why would the government attack its own people? Since when does the government care about its own people? You're incredibly naive if you think people like Cheney and Rumsfeld care about their own people.

It's the same reason they send our men off to die in Iraq, while they are exposed to DU and left vulnerable to attacks, having unarmewd vehicles. Simply put, those at the top only care about themselves and their agenda. They wouldn't have gotten to where they are if they weren't ruthless pigs.

But, I should also note that the side of the Pentagon that was attacked was undergoing renovation at the time, so it was pretty much unoccupied, except for a few people. Had this not have been the case, the death toll would have likely been higher.

 

Even if you don't think they care about the American people, don't you think it's possible that Donald Rumsfeld might have a bit more sympathy for the people he sees every day in the Pentagon, and talks to, and works alongside? For the millionth time, politicians are not mindless automatons pursuing some agenda. They're human beings.

Regardless, you still haven't given me a motive for why they'd want to destroy their own facility in the first place.

No idiot, that doesn't answer my question. WHAT IS THE MOTIVE FOR ATTACKING THEIR OWN FACILITY? At least in Iraq, they have some warped view that they're making Iraq a better place, or protecting the American people, or at least spreading American dominance throughout the region. What reason could they POSSIBLY have for launching an attack on the Pentagon? Governments don't just randomly send missiles into their own facilities for the hell of it, even if they are "ruthless pigs."

 

As far as I know, there aren't any pictures of this debris... however, that doesn't mean that there aren't any pictures, and that certainly doesn't mean that a 757 definitely did not hit the Pentagon.

You say that you will believe that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon only when you see conclusive photos of the debris or a video of the crash. How can you put THAT much emphasis on visual evidence? That's like trying someone in a murder case and saying, "well, if there isn't a photo or video of the defendant killing the victim, there is no way he is guilty." The logic just isn't there.

I'm not saying that video/photo evidence isn't important, but you can't demand it while writing off the other evidence.

We're not ignoring the key facts. The only "key facts" of yours that I'm not accepting is the deal with the C-ring (which I have given a possible explanation for), the lack of photos showing debris (which doesn't really prove anything either way), and the fact that footage of the crash hasn't been released (which I have given a possible explanantion for).

What is so surprising about a 16 ft diamter hole in the Pentagon? Seeing that the body of a Boeing 757 is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high, a hole in the Pentagon of about 16-20 ft sounds pretty logical to me.

Now I'm sure you'll try to say that the height of a 757 is much higher, but that is because the "no Boeing" theorists also like to mislead people about the height. The "no Boeing" supporters always give the height of a 757 as the measurement of the distance from the landing gear up to the tip of the tail, which misleads people.

No, I didn't misread what you wrote, and I'm not disputing the fact that some witnesses claim to have seen something other than a jet crash into the Pentagon. All I am saying is any source that deliberately uses the quote that I mentioned to build its case for the "no Boeing" theory should not be trusted.

Well, I'm assuming that the government is smart enough to only attempt something like an attack on the Pentagon if it was at least 99% sure that it could pull it off. So, they wouldn't be stupid enough to try to fly a 757 into the Pentagon... UNLESS they were sure they could do it. If they were sure, then what would stop them? I think that if they were sure they could pull off the attack with a 757, they wouldn't risk using a missile/UAV. That's simply my opinion, though.

 

No.
Now maybe if Rumsfeld himself died in the attack, you could put forward that argument, but conveniently, no one important died! Oh thank goodness! How lucky.
Why wasn't the White House attacked I wonder....

Yep, and all human being are wonderful!!!! YYYAAAYYY for HUMANSSS!! We Rule!!!111!

Do you think they could continuously (years later!) harp on 9/11 and make the policies that they have as a result with just the twin towers "attacked"? Obviously the more serious the scam, I mean "attack", the more fear they can infuse in people. They knew they could do it, and they did. What building would be easier to attack than one they control.

*after laughing for 10 minutes*, ahem. Is that what you really think they "think" they are doing over there?! You're in worse shape than I thought. NO wonder you're sympathetic.

 

Umm...YES.

The amount of casualties and financial damage at the Pentagon is a very very small fraction of the WTC damage. When people think of 9/11, they think of the planes flying into the World Trade Center, not the Pentagon.

I bet there's a substantial chunk of people who don't even know the Pentagon was hit on 9/11.

You're really grasping for straws. The irrationality of attacking one's own facility far exceeds any possible benefits in making people "even more afraid" as though the World Trade Center wasn't enough.

In chess, you don't let your opponent capture your queen just to confuse him.

This is irrelevant. The point is that they have reasons (or think they have reasons) for being in Iraq, whereas there is no possible reason for attacking their own building.

 

Wrong. The reason they are in Iraq is to control Middle Eastern oil. The reason they attacked their own worthless, expendable stupid building is so that they could more easily get into Iraq. They DON'T CARE about the Pentagon! It's a freakin building, big deal! They didn't care about the twin towers (in fact they wanted them demolished) and they DON'T CARE about the people who died in 9/11 or in the war. It's time for you to regain consciousness.

 

English must not be your first language. I just said that the point is that they have reasons for being in Iraq...you contradict me, and then POINT OUT THE REASONS FOR THEIR BEING IN IRAQ.

If you think the Pentagon is just another "worthless, expendable stupid building," then you are VERY misinformed about how our government operates. The Department of Defense is more concentrated in the Pentagon than any other building in the world. Destroying it wouldn't make it easier to go into Iraq; if anything, it would be a setback.

Furthermore, do you honestly believe that the American people would have been less likely to support a war in Iraq if there were only 2700 casualties in the World Trade Center, as opposed to 3000 in the World Trade Center AND Pentagon? That's ridiculous.

It's time for you to regain rationality. Regardless of whether or not you think that they care about the people involved, there is no reason for them to attack the Pentagon. It's not something you do just for fun.

 

You are impossible to talk to. You are wrong that it is irrelevant. The attack on their(America's) own building is tied to the invasion of Iraq. The reason I listed for them being in Iraq is different than the ones you claim they are there for.

We invaded Iraq! I guess it wasn't such a setback! They obviously hit it in a strategic place.

Who knows? They weren't going to take any chances. Why not hit the damn Pentagon. If you were planning an attack on your own people, you would probably make it a serious one too.

There is a reason. One reason is probably so idiot sheep like yourself would get hung up on the fact that the Pentagon was attacked!

YOU--->That must be proof that the gov. isn't in on it!!! Why on EARTH would they attack their own building!???!!!?!?!? Of couse they wouldn't do THAT! This is proof that the gov. is innocent!! BAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Good little lamb.

 

The premise that if "the government" had only attacked the WTC and not the Pentagon they couldn't have invaded Iraq is ridiculous. Why not cut your losses and admit that.

Do you think they crashed the fourth plane into the ground because they decided "oh three will do, we can attack Iraq now, no need to blow up anything else important"? That's where your bizarre logic leads. Maybe they're kicking themselves now - crap! we need to invade Iran and Syria but we didn't attack enough buildings on 9/11! We've exceeded the allowable ratio of 9/11 targets to countries invaded! If only we had hit a few more locations! Damn how are we gonna steal that oil now? (Question - please explain in what sense Iraqi oil has been stolen).

And we can only wonder why Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson, was on flight 77 if the conspirators "conveniently" made sure "no one important" was killed.

So Rat I guess you are going to ignore all my questions? I think I know what that means. I asked the right ones.

 

Lets say that forth plane had headed straight for washington and flew itself into another important building, we would be talking about maby another 10/20 minute gap at least between that and the last crash. NORAD, (the most sophisticated air defence network ever) had been absent for what 40, 45 minutes up till the third crash? add another 10 or 15 minutes for the forth plane and wow, thats nearly an hour! That would have been a silly decision and it would give us 'conspiracy theorists' even more to rant about.

So therefor they take the forth plane down in an effort to make the US air force look somewhat credible and active juring that huge period of time.

 

So you're saying that they planned ahead of time to crash that fourth plane or shoot it down or whatever, instead of flying it into another building? In that case, why bother with a fourth plane at all? Just another 100 or so casualties, since 2900 wouldn't be enough for a war?

Anyway, if they really needed to crash that fourth plane for some bizarre reason, and were worried about the "response time," couldn't they have just picked an earlier flight? There are thousands of flights that go out of those airports every day.

Face it, you guys are grasping for straws. These theories are ridiculous.

 

. . . .

 

That doesn't answer my question. If they hadn't bothered with a fourth plane at all, or had just chosen an earlier flight, they wouldn't have needed to make the Air Force look less incompetent because there would have only been the other three flights!

Since the official story, reported by the Air Force, is that the passengers overtook the hijackers and crashed the planes themselves, how does the Air Force benefit from it anyway? If they planned ahead of time to shoot down the plane to make themselves look good, why would they then go on every television network and give the credit to the passengers? How does that make them look good?

 

well if thats the case then, you win.