This just came to me. Please check it out.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
If someone can make it easier to click into the site, please do so.
Guest 77
What happened To The Plane At The Pentegon?
by Guest 77 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Amazing
Hi Guest77: Fascinating. Believe it or not, each photograph can be explained ... or at least legitimate possibilities. I will come back and edit this post later to explain the situation.
-
hawkaw
So former CNN legal consultant Greta (the scientologist) Van Sustrin and hundreds of other observers were making it all up when she and the others observed the plane fly low over the Washington Mall across the river and into the Pentagon.
hawk
-
Naeblis
It was obviously mass hallucinations.
-
Elsewhere
Wasn't there also a video of the plane crash taken by a security camera at a checkpoint?
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x >< -
Englishman
The Pentagon must be bristling with cameras, so there must be lots of footage available of the event. Maybe it was a missile and they dont want to cause panic.
Englishman.
-
Naeblis
A missile from where? Very few countries have the range to hit the states with a missile. None of which are enemies at themoment.
-
chasson
This hoax came from a french's guy...
See http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/ , where he sell his book on the subject.
And the answer against this hoax:
http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hdossier/pentagone/pentagone.html
Sorry, all in french...
But you have links in english at the end of this second page...
Bye
Charles
-
Amazing
Hi Guest77: I have left my comments below as they were. After reviewing the material Chasson provided and linking up to various English versions and additional photos, my initial comments are almost totally meaningless. Half my brain must have been tied behind my back. But hey, there are some interesting ideas. Here is the link that I liked the best:
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Initial Comments:
On 9/11 there were initial reports of a plane crashing at or near a government installation, possibly Camp David, outside Washington, D.C. If a truck bomb was responsible for the damage at the Pentagon, then this would explain the seeming lack of evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Because the other location is a secretive area, it is possible that the government decided to keep it classified.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, but the reason that the photos do not exhibit normal debris and other consequential damage can have some good explanations:
1. The initial plan, it is believed, was to crash into the White House, a much more symbolic attack. The plane took off at Washington national, right nearby. The hijackers had to have some time to take the plane over. Once in control, they had to make a sharp turn to go back toward the White House. They could not make this target, and in a very sharp turn likely stalled in an almost vertical bank. This would explain the wings not hitting the building horizontally, but closer to vertical.
2. The plane hit more in the foreground, breaking off the wings, with the nose and some fuselage ramming the ground floor. Some of the wing going sharply into the ground, but not making a wide path.
3. The Pentagon is not standard office design and construction. It was built shortly after WWII, and was designed to withstand bombs and other major attack. This is also one reason for the multiple rings, to seal off inner rings in case of a breach in the outer ring. EXAMPLE: Nuclear plant containment design has been tested with jets flying into a wall section. The planes used were fighters traveling at 550 mph. Yet, the containment walls were barely scratched. Likewise, a larger passenger jet at 250 mph would mostly disintegrate on impact into a tough building like the Pentagon.
4. The Pentagon is more than what you see. Had the plane banked in sharply, wings closer to vertical, and hit the foreground, it would have also gone underground some. This would explain the narrower path of destruction. It would also have exposed some of the underground construction, which I understand is highly classified. I have no doubt that if a portion of the underground facility were exposed, the Pentagon would have seized videos and snapshot cameras and doctored the picture to hide the underground exposure. Classified means just that, and misinformation is a legitimate practice. Especially if it is intended to mislead the bad guys in future attempted attacks.
5. Missing debris. If you look at the plane crash site in Pennsylvania, there is also nothing left of the plane. Commercial airplanes are made of lighter materials, and fully loaded with fuel and passengers, they have a major mass load on impact ... and at several hundred mph, their mass load is increased exponentially. So, as they hit, depending on angle of impact, ground soil conditions, other objects like trees, buildings, etc. they will disintegrate into almost nothing but bite size pieces. Sometimes large sections will survive, but not always.
Conclusion: I have no doubt that the commercial jet hit the Pentagon. The eye witnesses, the media, the people on board in the media who used cell phones to report what they saw before impact all support a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Therefore: I favor the rationale that the plane hit at a sharp angle, cutting into the ground and the point of impact hitting the ground floor. The design construction of the Pentagon suggests to me that it absorbed much of the crash, causing massive disintegration with little peripheral damage from wings, much as nuclear plant containments will resist such impact. The fuselage impact was more than the outer ring could totally withstand, and caused point of impact damage.
The resulting fire was mitigated because as the wings disintegrated, much of the fuel was able to dissipate ... as is normal. Whereas the WTC, the fuel, wings and all went right into the middle of the buildings, and had no where to go but to explode and burn until gone. A truck bomb would not be able to get that close to the Pentagon, and even if it did, it could not have caused the level of damage, because the again of the special building design, unlike the Federal Building in Oklahoma which would be of normal office construction style.
I could be wrong. My point here is to take a more caution approach to opinions unless the Government release new facts and conclusions, which is not likely due to the classified nature of the building construction and design.
My nephew was there, and his comments were that everyone could smell the Jet fuel burning. So, we know that it was not a fertilizer bomb, but that the fire was due to jet fuel.
Finally: There is no need, beyond classified building design and other hidden underground features, for the government to cover over what really happened. By covering over any sub-surface exposure, they are merely protecting its existence ... and in doing that, touching up photos, etc. this lends to the impression to the lay person that something is not right. And conspiracy theories abound in such an environment.
Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live - or demand others to live - by an extensive and rigid set of dos and don'ts that go beyond the teachings of the Bible. The Watchtower, 4-15-02, pg 22, pp 15
-
Quotes
*sigh*
Is it possible that people at this board, who in previous stages of their life, were willing to beleive a load of crap from the WTB&TS, no matter how ridiculous, continue to have that same problem?
Come on... if you believe "there was no plane" then you may also still beleive that "SATAN IS PERSECUTING JWs"
===========================
For interesting Watchtower Society literature quotes, complete with references but without any editorial, check out:
http://Quotes.JehovahsWitnesses.com
