Viewing Thread:
"Biggest conspiracy ever, you must read~!!!"

You remeber September the 11th? Well you may also remember that a plane crashed into the Pentaon. Now here is the tricky part, bear with me. My science teacher at school has noticed something rather strange about the whole Pentagon hitting thing. It was hit by a Boeing 747 which is a very big plane as you know. If the plane did hit the Pentagon why was there no plane reckage, dead bodies apart from the people in the building, or either a skid along the floor because the plane supposedly hit the first level of the building and it aint that high. Now, my science teacher put a projection of a Boeing outline onto a birdseye shot of the Pentagon and discovered that there was no wing damage on the building. So basically, what i'm trying to get across is that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane. Think about it, no viedos, no bodies, no plane reckage. What we think is that there was a rocket launched from the ground either by a terrorist or an American person to make Osama seem even more dangerous.

I just thought I would add to this, because I too want to se Iraqistanman see the error of his ways.

cipro wrote:
BUILDING DAMAGE+747 WINGS+WRECKAGE
Look at the address I posted, the hole is huge. Everything cipro has said stands to reason. The hole is huge because the plane exploded and broke up the building. The building itself is huge, you can't appreciate how big it is until you go to see it, so the hole may look small but from the photo I posted you can see from the crane in the foreground, that the hole is in fact huge.


WITNESSES
Exactly, their are memorials to the families of the people on that plane. We know who they were. They knew the plane was flying towads the pentagon from the radars. I imagine that American Airlines also has a missing plane record of that plane. All proving that the plane hit the building.

FIRE
Exactly, the WTC itself proves that airline fuel burns for a long time. The fires underneath the rubble burned for months.

ROCKET ATTACK+TIMING
Again, I agree with Cipro. What earthly reason is there to lie about this? Why would a government fake, or even have time to fake, a full set of identities and a missing plane so that it could cover up a bomb blast or a rocket attack at the pentagon? And furthermore why hasn't a newspaper exposed the cover-up?

Iraqistan man, you and your teacher are monkeys for dreaming up such a pointless and baseless conspiracy theory.

Just to try and put this topic to rest and shut up those who actually beleive this rubbish and unbeliveable conspiracy theory, I have thought of some points which show this is not a huge conspiracy by the US government but a terrorist attack.

BUILDING DAMAGE
I'm sure the Pentagon is made more of just bricks and mortar, I would think the actual building itself is made of extremely thick concrete and steele which is why the plane only destroyed a small section of the building on impact rather than flying straight through.

747 WINGS
How much do damage do you expect the wings would do? You conspiracy nuts don't actually explain. put this together with the above point and the one below and you may get an idea on what happened to the planes wings.

WRECKAGE
A plane the size of a 747 would be carrying alot of fuel and when the terrorists flew it directly at the pentagon it would have been travelling at a great speed. When the plane did impact at that speed, with its size, and that much fuel onboard, hitting the pentegon would have disintagrated it. This is why there is not alot of wreckage or bodies from the plane.

WHITNESSES
Just look at the link Bellandy put down. Do you suggest these people never actually died? If so were are they? There are also whitnesses in air traffic control as well as hundreds of people on the ground in DC. Did these people imagine a 747 crashing into the pentagon.

FIRE
As we all know the pentagon was on fire days after the terrorist attack. Why? well because of fuel from the plane of corse why else.

ROCKET ATTACK
A rocket would never cause the amount of damage that we saw in the pentagon, it would have to be something alot bigger like a cruise missile or something similar. And then you've got to look at how could terrorists smuggles such a weapon into America with out detection and how would they get their hands on such a powerful weapon. It doesn't add up.

TIMING
The government would have had to be pritty damn fast to cover up a attack on the pentagon if it were something other than a hijacked plane that was used. There would have been hundreds in not thousands of people to keep quiet aswell as the people on the plane itself, they would have had to bribe everyone who saw the attack. Then there is the plane itself. Where did it go?

Put these points with the fact the government has no reason to lie about the attack (A missile attack would make the country look vunerable is not a strong enough point) and your conspiracy theory looks pretty flat. Next time you want to think up a conspiracy plot at least 'think' about all the facts first.

I suggest the original poster of this topic contact the relatives of the people found on the site below;

http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/deathnotice_private.asp? idMemorial=1318

Remove the space by the "?"

They will probably be quite relived to know their loved ones never died, especially the children...

I just wish some of the more "challenged" people on here would think before posting potentially harmful rubbish like this, and if you've just done this a a joke then thats even worse, you're pathetic.

VenomByte wrote:
> You're one of them! You're in on it too! ;)

Anyway, if the hole is big
> enough, then it could have been caused by an aircraft. Doesn't prove that it was
> though...

They would attempt to cover it up if it was indeed a missile attack
> or something similar, because it would make America look vulnerable. I honestly
> don't think it would be feasable to create that sort of a cover up so quickly
> with no advanced warning, and persuade all the witnesses, but that's not enough
> to disprove it in my opinion.

So basically what your saying is a missile attack on the Pentagon would make the US look vulerable, but a passanger plane being flown into it wouldn't. And what about eyewitnesses? did they imagine a 747 crashing into the Pentagon or did they get bribed by the govrnment to say thats what they saw.

MrHappy wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/mrohappy/index.html

There. Combine this
> with the fact that I haven't thought of a reason for the US government to cover up a bomb explosion
> at the pentagon, and the fact that I've read somewhere and/or been told that a missing plane was recorded flying at the
> pentagon, and the hole in the pentagon, we can safely assume that a plane might have hit
> the building.

Right then you monkeys.

To prove you wrong I have taken a screen grab from the footage I shot and posted it on a hasitly made geocities page. You will see from the size of the crane in comparison to the whole that a plane hit the building and created a hole much bigger than it's own size. HENCE NO WING MARKS!!

and there is no skid because the plane flew into the building without hitting the ground first.

http://www.geocities.com/mrohappy/index.html

There. Combine this with the fact that the US government has no reason to cover up a bomb explosion at the pentagon, and the fact that a missing plane was recorded flying at the pentagon, and the hole in the pentagon, we can safely assume that a plane hit the building.

You're one of them! You're in on it too! ;)

Anyway, if the hole is big enough, then it could have been caused by an aircraft. Doesn't prove that it was though...

They would attempt to cover it up if it was indeed a missile attack or something similar, because it would make America look vulnerable. I honestly don't think it would be feasable to create that sort of a cover up so quickly with no advanced warning, and persuade all the witnesses, but that's not enough to disprove it in my opinion.

I've seen the bloody hole!

It is much bigger than a plane and a plane's wingspan.

I have absolutely no doubt that a plane hit that building and I can see no earthly reason why they would say a plane had hit the building if it hadn't.

Why is everyone so quick to criticise? Don't assume the building was hit by a plane until proven otherwise, assume that either possibility is conceivable until you have 100% proof either way.

There was a big hole in the pentagon. Has anyone actually measured the size of this hole and compared it with the size of the 747's wingspan? It has a wingspan of over two hundred feet. I don't know how big the hole in the penatgon is.

Is there any proof that the particular 747 in question did exist, or could have been made up? Has anyone checked the airline records or are you all assuming what you've read and seen on the news is true?

I'm not saying I think it's a cover up, I'm just saying I don't know enough to prove or disprove either theory.

Gabbo wrote:
but it is still extremely close to the
> bone at the moment, so do us all a favour and let it drop.

I respect your wishes Gabbo.