Loose Change 2nd Edition

[Pence]

This website states how the plane's body might be able to go into the hole but there is no sence of were the wings, engine, fin and stablisers went - thus the hole of CatHerder's ivestigation or story can be completely blanked out.


Now tell me how did a Boeing 757 disapear into a square hole without the wings or engine damageing the outside of the pentagon?

[Hitperson]

good piont and an aircraft crash would have scatterd bit in a cone of damage that would have peperd the side of the building completly and the engines wolf have been left on the lawn outthe front because just cliping the ground would have been sufficient to rip then off. also consider this the avaition fuel kerosine (parafin) burns very quickly any on inside the building would have been asphixiated within a fraction of a second also if a 757 had colided there would be bits on the far side and in the centre of the pentagon.

although an aircraft is rugged is will still desintegrate on contact with the ground and the fire ball would have forced its way through all the walls from the inpact point to the centre if the plane was traveling at 140 knots it wouldn't hav gone far but most likly it would have been going at 200-30 knots as to provid the most destruction and if it had hit at that speed it would have ended up in the far side of the pentagon.

Originally Posted by AznLB

Give me one peice of evidence they didn't fall under their own power. Do you not understand the concept of the collapse? Let me sum it up for you:
Plane hit building, fuel make fire, fire get hot, fire weaken but not melt steel, floor collapse, floor make next floor collapse, and so on and so on.

The people who make up these theories are college kids and hippies who need meaning in their lives. They aren't experts, but they produce a video very well to make it look like they know what they're talking about.

Being an avid pilot and aviation enthusiast, and also having friends and relatives present at the time of the collapse, I have no doubt in my mind that the WTC collapse was caused by a freaking HUNK OF STEEL slamming into each tower, and an really hot fire weakening steel.

Say what you want, I would stake my life on what I say, and I say there was no demolition, no conspiracies, just a very tragic attack by misguided douchebags.

just to point out aircraft are made out of aluminium so infact they are much weaker then you thought

Originally Posted by AznLB

What are you talking about? You're Scottish, how is my government not giving you awnsers?

I find you an ignorant person for a few reasons, some would be: You didn't even know what the Crusades were called, or who carried them out; You compared a twin-prop B-25 to a multi-million dollar 767; and you somehow got the impression that aircraft are held together with glue, a material not used structurally on aircraft since World War One.

Now honestly, how am I supposed to value your opinion? Alot of these "facts" are simply pieces of vague information that can be interpreted in many, many different ways. And, that's if they even make sense at all. Case in point: the theory that it was not a jetliner that hit the Pentagon, rather, a predator drone, which any aviation buff would instantly know is false: a predator would disintegrate upon impact with solid concrete, and leave little if any hole at all. It's just another illustration of how little the theorists actually know about what they speak of.

I understand this is a taboo subject, and certain people are intigued by the whole conspiracy thing, however you have no right to call any of it "facts". Simply put, all this is entertainment in my opinion, none of it holds any water, and it's just another reason to fantasize about how bad the world is.

i would like to question your abilities ok a b-25 is a would war 2 aircraft but please not this aircraft is designd to be shot at!!
meaning it is actually stronger than your average civil airliner what you are comparing to is the fact that modern fighters are infact made out of fiber glas and light wight polimers and so they are actually very ligh.

another fact a B-25 is more likely to be stronger and to cause more damage as it is flying slower so there is a higher effect of gravity on it also the structure fo the aircraft means that more damge would be done to the building because of the props and other riged parts also a B-25 is a bomber so it is designed to be carrying heavey objects so it must be storg also they are riveted together as well.


**Merged to condense posts** -[R-DEV] JS.Fortnight.A

[Lifetaker]

Originally Posted by Hitperson

just to point out aircraft are made out of aluminium so infact they are much weaker then you thought



i would like to question your abilities ok a b-25 is a would war 2 aircraft but please not this aircraft is designd to be shot at!!
meaning it is actually stronger than your average civil airliner what you are comparing to is the fact that modern fighters are infact made out of fiber glas and light wight polimers and so they are actually very ligh.

another fact a B-25 is more likely to be stronger and to cause more damage as it is flying slower so there is a higher effect of gravity on it also the structure fo the aircraft means that more damge would be done to the building because of the props and other riged parts also a B-25 is a bomber so it is designed to be carrying heavey objects so it must be storg also they are riveted together as well.

This is not meant as an insult, Hitperson, but you should at least get some facts in order before you try and debunk other's information.

1. Aluminum was chosen to replace other materials on aircraft because it is so much lighter and STRONGER. Here's a quick test for you. I don't know how old you are, but if you can get your hands on a Sapporo beer can, try and crush it with your bare hands.

2. As far as the B25 thing. Really, I don't even know where to start. Let's just put it this way. If they could have built it out of aluminum, they would have.

[AznLB]

Originally Posted by GosHawk

Well not to get on your bad side AznLB but a reason for them not responding may be because they probably have other RL priorities...

And don't get me wrong as I'm sure you love your country (the US) as much as I do (very much), but you make it sound almost as though your glad it was 'terrorists' instead of the Government as the video states.

Yes, I understand, sometimes I neglect to realize there is a time gap with alot of us.

As to your second statement, I'm not glad it happened at all, no matter who did it. Nobody, regardless of coutry, deserves to be slaughtered like that, just for a nationality. However, I would rather it be "terrorists" that did it, versus my govenment, because terrorist can be defended against.

I'm not bashing the conspiracy theories because I'm American or a patriot, I bash them because they are, for the most part, stupid. They are almost entireley made up of twisted facts and figures, and vague information with a liberal spin. If some of these conspiracists actually took the time to read about what really happened at the Pentagon, WTC, and 93, they would find that the facts are straight-up, with no spin or bias. Unlike this "Loose Change" garbage.

Originally Posted by Pence

This website states how the plane's body might be able to go into the hole but there is no sence of were the wings, engine, fin and stablisers went - thus the hole of CatHerder's ivestigation or story can be completely blanked out.


Now tell me how did a Boeing 757 disapear into a square hole without the wings or engine damageing the outside of the pentagon?

Keep in mind, the wings on the 757 and all other commercial aircraft are very thin, and have just enough structure inside to be safe. This is done so fuel can be stored inside, essentially, the wings on your common airliner are actually two, long, fragile fuel tanks. Considering how fast the plane was traveling when it hit the Pentagon, the wings would have been completely destroyed before even coming close to puncturing concrete. The hole is so small because the only part of the aircraft that actually made it into the building was the slightly denser lower-fuselage.

In refrence to the B-25 comments, you're very mistaken. The B-25 travels slower than a 757, carries fuel that is less flammable, and would cause little structural damage to a building. Good try, but you came to the wrong person to try passing your uneducated BS.

Originally Posted by Hitperson

just to point out aircraft are made out of aluminium so infact they are much weaker then you thought

I know that, it was something I typed without thinking.

Sorry for double post, thanks.

[Pence]

"In refrence to the B-25 comments, you're very mistaken. The B-25 travels slower than a 757, carries fuel that is less flammable, and would cause little structural damage to a building. Good try, but you came to the wrong person to try passing your uneducated BS."

All fule is flamable, Oil of any sort in contact with a flame will set the oil alight.

"Keep in mind, the wings on the 757 and all other commercial aircraft are very thin, and have just enough structure inside to be safe. This is done so fuel can be stored inside, essentially, the wings on your common airliner are actually two, long, fragile fuel tanks."

I respect you are calm'er but you forgot the engine's and next time you fly in a jetliner notice the wings are pulled forward by the power if the engines so the structure is alot stronger than you think. I have flown on several 747 and 737's. I cant beleave you think wings and engines of this size just dissapear, especily into such a small hole.

You do know every jet engine made by Rolls-Royce is turned on for a couple of days alot of the time on full power, i went to Filton and they showed a video of a jet engine being abused in a type of wind tunnle room with the testies throwing cookable chickens and hundreds of gallons of water through the engine to test its suvivability and the engine was on full for around an hour wile the water was being fed in. - Just for interest.

AznLB i am not contesting - Just suggesting.

[Malum]

the plane didnt dissapear it disintegrated in a high impact fuel laden explosion. A plane is not a bullet, it is relatively light and not dense, the most dense material would be the fuel and that exploded throwing the light weight plane frame into shards/fragments...a plane is not made to penetrate concrete.

You guys can't be serious? I watched the video, it uses classic faulty logic.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc AND (maybe especially) cum hoc ergo propter hoc both employed in the video.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. Some philosophy books translate the Latin to simply: "If, then therefore, because."

Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause", is a logical fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence is integral to causality — it is true that a cause always happens before its effect. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based only on the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. That is to say, it is not always true that the first event caused the second event.

Post hoc is an example of affirming the consequent. It can be expressed as follows:

* Event A occurred before event B.
* Therefore, A must have caused B.

Example:

1. A rooster always crows prior to sunrise
2. Therefore: the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise.

Another example:

1. Ice cream sales elevate greatly each June
2. Car thefts elevate each July.
3. Therefore: more people eating ice cream causes more cars to be stolen.

This line of reasoning is the basis for many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking, connecting two things that have no actual or logical connection. For example, if a person sees a coin on the ground and picks it up, and later receives good news, that person may become convinced that finding the coin resulted in the good news, even though it was a mere coincidence.

Post hoc reasoning is related to the logical fallacy "correlation implies causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)."


Correlation implies causation, also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to be cause and effect.

For example:

Teenage girls eat lots of chocolate.
Teenage girls are most likely to have acne.
Therefore, chocolate causes acne.

This argument, and any of this pattern, is an example of a false categorical syllogism. One observation about it is that the fallacy ignores the possibility that the correlation is coincidence. We can pick an example where the correlation is as statistically "robust" as we please, but we still cannot assume one factor causes the other. If chocolate-eating and acne were strongly correlated across cultures, and remained strongly correlated for decades or centuries, it may not be a mere coincidence. However, in this particular example, the last statement is a logical fallacy because it ignores the possibility that a third factor may be the cause of eating chocolate and having acne (e.g. being young). See joint effect.

Another important consideration is the presence or absence of a known mechanism which may explain how one event causes the other. Using the above example, if chocolate contains large quantities of hydrogenated fats, or trans-fatty acids, and if those have been shown to clog pores and thus cause acne, then the link between chocolate and acne is more believable. A counter-example would be astrology, where there is no convincing known mechanism to describe why personality would be affected by the position of the stars. Of course, the absence of a known mechanism doesn't preclude the possibility of an unknown mechanism.

For one event to be the cause of another it must happen first. In some cases the precipitating event may happen so quickly before the result, or may overlap the result in time, so they are said to occur simultaneously. However, the precipitating event can't happen after the result, for example, by concluding that a current increase in population caused a baby boom many years ago.

Another example:

Ice-cream sales are strongly (and robustly) correlated with crime rates.
Therefore, ice-cream causes crime.

The above argument commits the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, because it prematurely concludes ice cream sales cause crime when a more plausable explanation is that high temperatures increase crime rates (presumably by making people irritable) as well as ice-cream sales.

Another possibility in correlated factors is that the direction of the causation may be wrong as stated. For example:

Gun ownership is correlated with crime.
Therefore, gun ownership leads to crime.

In the above example, because it may be the case that an increase in crime leads to more gun ownership by concerned citizens who do not commit crimes, we cannot conclude from the first statement alone that gun ownership causes crime. See wrong direction.

The statement "correlation does not imply causation" notes that it is dangerous to deduce causation from a statistical correlation. If you only have A and B, a correlation between them does not let you infer A causes B, or vice versa, much less 'deduce' the connection. But if there was a common cause, and you had that data as well, then often you can establish what the correct structure is. Likewise (and perhaps more usefully) if you have a common effect of two independent causes.

But while often ignored, the advice is also overstated, as if to say there is no way to infer causal structure from statistical data. Clearly, we should not prematurely conclude something like ice-cream causes criminal tendencies. We expect the correlation to point us towards the real causal structure. Again, the tendency is to conclude robust correlations imply some sort of causation, whether common cause or something more complicated involving multiple factors. Hans Reichenbach suggested the Principle of the Common Cause, which asserts basically that robust correlations have causal explanations, and if there is no causal path from A to B (or vice versa), then there must be a common cause, though possibly a remote one.

Reichenbach's principle is closely tied to the Causal Markov condition used in Bayesian networks. The theory underlying Bayesian networks sets out conditions under which you can infer causal structure, when you have not only correlations, but also partial correlations. In that case, certain nice things happen. For example, once you consider the temperature, the correlation between ice-cream sales and crime rates vanishes, which is consistent with a common-cause (but not diagnostic of that alone).

In statistics literature this issue is often discussed under the headings of spurious correlation and Simpson's paradox.

David Hume argued that any form of causality cannot be perceived (and therefore cannot be known or proven), and instead we can only perceive correlation. However, we can use the scientific method to rule out false causes.

[Hitperson]

ok wired just think though a 767 is toucher than your average light aircraft (767 crash after engine fire in uk cant remember when or where) the aircraft hit the ground at over 200 knots and it was mostly complete.

[Pence]

Originally Posted by Hitperson

ok wired just think though a 767 is toucher than your average light aircraft (767 crash after engine fire in uk cant remember when or where) the aircraft hit the ground at over 200 knots and it was mostly complete.

Yea it hit a load of houses but it was complete and the houses were in tact but the ones hit directly were almost destroyed.

[Hitperson]

yeah the stupid pilots shut down the working engine leaving the burning one to rip its self apart.


of and i saw some one say that rolls royce test with cook able chickens well as a little note pratt and whittney test with frozen chickens and they fire them out of a gatteling gun and the 747 engine just chews it and spits it out the back.

edit: the only reason a aircraft is weak it the fact that they are pressurised i saw a test compareing letting off an explosive device on an unpressuresed aircraft and an aircraft pressurised to 40,000 feet the pressurised one had its tail fall off not ripped of it just fell of.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by AznLB

Notice how none of them speak after I put in that link.

These idiots get praise and commendation for their bent, twisted propaganda, but when something factual, well thought out, and logical is posted, noone even responds.

What happened guys? I thought you said the Pentagon was a hoax too! I thought you said it wasn't a plane that hit it, why so silent now? Can't argue with the facts?

Busy.

Ive put aside my research on the collapse of the WTC towers to have a look at the crash in the pentagon.

I will continue to say that unless the government releases the videos of the plane crash (there were three videos) there will always be doubt to what actually hit the pentagon.

Ive looked at a few things and I mush say you haven't done the best job presenting the evidence in fact the only evidence you have given us is the link to the topic "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon" at ATC.

The topic does explain a lot of things very well although it does discreetly avoid certain bits of evidence.

It also entirely avoided the question about what happened to the Engines or the wings.
They would have left some sort of mark in the wall. If a 757's body riped a hole through the building then the engine which are made of titanium should have at least left a mark in the wall.

You keep saying that the plane disintegrated because of the fire, well it wouldn't have (do some more research)
If you take a look at this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...t-impact_3.jpg

And the videos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control..._Demonstration

Large parts of the plane are left intact. The videos explain how the engines might have been destroyed but the only way for them to have been destroyed was if the impacted with the building and there isn't much evidence of this.

I'm actually not decided on what may have happened at the pentagon, the major factor is the lack of evidence. I am still looking for a photo that shows there the engines hit the pentagon.

One thing to keep in mind is that section of the pentagon I believe was recently refurbished to withstand similar attacks the lack of destruction could have been a result of those refurbishments.