Let's stop this conspiracy theory before it starts


This rather distasteful conspiracy theory deals with the apparrent lack of recognizable airplane parts at the site of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. Apparently this means that it wasn’t a plane at all but a car bomb, and the whole thing is being covered up for some nefarious reason. :rolleyes:

I suppose I’m posting this just because I’m a little annoyed at the condescending tone of the site… because it looks pretty easy to debunk:

Where’s the plane? Plane full of fuel. Plane explode. No more plane.

How does a big Boeing 757 moving that fast only damage the outside of the Pentagon? The Pentagon’s a pretty solid building. Might explain why there aren’t any big plane parts left, you think?

Why couldn’t the fire officials answer two questions posed by journalists about the wreckage? Well, jeez, guys, the questions were asked on September 12, you might think there might still be a little bit of forensic work left to do.

What’s with the sand and gravel being spread over the lawn? I don’t know, but why would they do this if it were a car bomb?

Anything I’ve missed?

(btw, since I’ve forgotten nearly everything I learned in high school French, I don’t know what the rest of the site is about. There is the distinct possiblity I’m being whooshed by a poor attempt at humor.)

Why are you even bothering to listen or read any of this nonsense. Every time I pass a person on the street banging a colander and preaching the “end is near” I ignore it and treat it simply as crazy talk. You shouldn’t treat every idea with enough dignity to bring it up to proper debate.

American airlines flight 77 crashed and killed 64 people. Those people left thousands of loved ones behind. Why don’t you look into web sites on crop circles. They have much more credible claims to reality.

Snopes has done this.

I agree it’s pretty stupid. I’d just like to know what kind of crackpot likes to sit around and make up crap like this.


No I don’t have the pictures to back this up, but I’m sure somebody does. This article from Aviation Week briefly explains a few things.

There’s information from the pentagon website itself, but you can’t trust those government types!!!. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/pentagoninfo.html See especially the transcript of the briefing which describes where the plane went and what happened to it

For one, it wasn’t just in the outer ring (the E-ring) that damage occurred. It went diagonally in all the way to the C-ring. Apparently whoever set up that site is unaware that objects can go underneath other objects, and thus be concealed from overhead views.

Also, the plane clipped trees & light poles on the way in, according to reports. I’d assume you could find those in the area.
There’s plenty of eyewitness accounts, too, though of course those who disbelieve will always disbelieve.

I heard a guy on the radio claiming that the crash of flight 77 was planned solely to accomlish the murder of Barbara Olsen, and that the mastermind behind it was none other that Hillary Clinton. He also claimed that the plane did not crash into the Pentagon - I didn’t really catch how he reconciled the two theories. I was rolling my eyes pretty hard, I can tell you.

Thanks for the link, Loopus (and everyone else, now that I preview). Shoulda known it’d be on Snopes.

Hey, who said anything about proper debate? This one’s too easily crushable. (Where’s Smashie when you need him?) :smiley:

some people will still insist on believing.

So, we’re conspiring against a conspiracy theory?
Ok. I like that.

One possible “explanation” is that it was done to cover the tire tracks. Never mind the fact that it probably would be pretty difficult to actually get a ground vehicle all the way up to the building without some kind of security intervention.
Of course, using sand to soak up jet fuel so that it doesn’t ignite while recovery operations are under way, and blanketing the area to smother any unknown smoldering spots to keep potential fires from spreading, and putting gravel down so emergency vehicles can get traction as they go up to the damaged area is just too wacky.

I honestly think it was a car bomb. Who you gonna believe, eyewitnesses or conspiracy nuts with websites? :rolleyes:

Of course drawing attention to it and providing a link to the site is probably counterproductive to stopping it.
This is just a covert operation of dirty tricks to increase the site’s hit count, thus tacitly increasing its credibility.
Oh, you vast (insert adjective here) conspiracies are too clever by half. You’re putting out the fire with gasoline (as opposed to sand and gravel.) We’ve been tricked again! :rolleyes:

Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo do a pretty thorough debunking here.

As someone who was actually at the Pentagon site on the 13 of Sep, i feel i can speak up. There were LOTS of recognizable airplane parts in the rubble resulting from the crash. I was one of the people who dug through the resulting rubble looking for classified documents, airplane parts, and unfortunately body parts. I found many, many pieces of aircraft debris, along with a completely intact whiskey bottle and wine bottle of the type found on airplanes. Furthermore, a co-worker of mine who I see everyday was waiting at the bus stop at the Pentagon and actually saw the plane come flying into the building. Car bomb my ASS!!!

I saw a web page recently (sorry, I didn’t save the link)
that claims the FBI purposely invented the “Hunt the Boeing”
controversy for the expressed purpose of having it debunked.

It is claimed that for the FBI, and other intelligence agencies worldwide, invent and publicize crackpot conspiracies from time to time. Every time a conspiracy is debunked, it gives them more credibility the next time they want to claim that a real conspiracy theorist is a crackpot.

The page claimed that, besides “poisoning the waters”, as they called it, they invented the “Hunt the Boeing” conspiracy to distract from the recent news of an Isreali spy ring.

I could’ve sworn I bookmared the page but I can’t find it now. Maybe another member can find it.

There’s a very simple reason why all that sand was put down - it’s a ROAD. They needed to do that to support the weight of the heavy equipment needed at the site.

I had to do something similar last year to get heavy equipment into my backyard to lay in a stone patio and firepit.

As for there being no pieces of airplane left - this is typical. Jet aircraft may weigh a lot, but they aren’t very solid. They get their strength from a monocoque structure, which means light ribs with an aluminum skin stretched over them to add rigidity. Tear up the skin, and the thing folds like a paper cup.

The densest parts of the plane would be the engines, and those typically stay together much better and go the furthest. I suspect the engines left the airframe and penetrated deeper into the buildings.

The buildings themselves are made of steel reinforced concrete and weigh FAR more per sq foot than did the jet. So it basically blasted itself into little tiny pieces while trying to crunch through an extremely dense object. Fire would have put the finishing touches on it.

www.whatreallyhappened.com !

great fun.

The plane crashed into the only part of the Pentagon that had been remodeled to give it more strength for just such an occurance. If the plane had crashed into any other part, there would have been more damage.

Gee if thats not something for the comspiracy theorists. Why did the plane crash into the one part of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced?

Well, it had a 20% chance of hitting the reinforced side. As anyone who plays the Lottery will tell you, those’re good odds.

This site claims it was actually an unmanned drone aircraft, not a car bomb. They claim the flight landed safely in VA or WV somewhere. I can think of few things more offensive to the victim’s families than this one.