Actually, a more plausible reason comes to mind, and it’s the same reason NASA doesn’t go out of its way to prove the moon landings really happened. Namely, the vast majority of people demanding to see the tapes (or evidence of the Apollo landings) are conspiracy nuts who, even if presented with such evidence, would find some pretzel-logic means of refuting it.
Seeing as you get more grief from trying to appease crazy people than you get from just ignoring them, I’m not surprised the tapes haven’t surfaced. I expect an eventual FOIA request, properly filed after an appropriate length of time, will get the tapes released. At that point most of the people (who accepted from day one that a commercial jet was involved) will say “Yep, that’s how it happened” while some of the people will continue to scream “Cover-up!”
One small point about the tarpaulins and general covering: a lot of the contents of the Pentagon are Secret, and you’ve got smashed offices with lots of little pieces of paper with Secret information flying around.
Just picturing the outcome of the release of a tape clearly showing the 757 bearing down on the Pentagon:
Conspiracy Believer #1: It’s a fake! See that car in the convenience store parking lot? It’s a Toyota Tercel and it’s orange! The Tercel was never available in orange!
Skeptic: Well, I think it was, actually. But even then, for one the tape isn’t that clear so that car isn’t necessarily a Tercel. It could be any similar model, which might have been available in orange. Two, even if that is a Tercel, and orange was not available, the camera isn’t that good and the lighting was such that the car might actually be red or yellow, which were available colours. And three, even if that’s a Tercel, and if it’s actually orange, and if orange wasn’t available at point of sale, the owner could easily have had it painted any colour he wanted.
Conspiracy Believer #2: Wow, an orange Tercel! That proves the tape is a fake!
I’ll support FinnAgain here. He’s already said that he doesn’t buy into the conspiracy theories, but that there are some things he doesn’t understand about the crash. And there have been some answers given in this thread that are just wrong.
The single point that seems to be mysterious is that there is a hole in the Pentagon the size of the plane’s fuselage, but no holes for the wings. Is this right? There have to be holes somewhere, becuase the engines on a 757 are wing-mounted, and some reports I’ve read say that engine parts were found inside the Pentagon.
The notion that the wings would fold up and follow into the fuselage hole is ridiculous. Just imagine, from the wingtip point of view, the forces involved and the strength of the materials. A better answer is to tell him to imagine that you have thin aluminum going at hundreds of feet per second, slamming into masonry. You’d have a puddle of unrecognizable metal.
My favorite thing on the flash video was about the camera on the nearby hotel (Sheraton?), where the employess watched it in horror several times before the FBI took it away. Did the video authors not think to ask those folks exactly what they saw? Because there are no quotes from them in it. Obviously, these folks, who would be in a position to say exactly what happened, didn’t support the missile theory.
Likewise, the notion that the wings would simply be clipped off and lying on the ground directly outside the Pentagon in their entirety (and entirely recognizable as airplane wings) is also laughable, but is what I’m thinking that FinnAgain is expecting to see. The reality is that real explosions such as this aren’t like the ones you see from Hollywood (and therefore are most familiar with) - there aren’t any exact cartoon cutouts of the passage and there likely won’t be any recognizable artifacts left. Real life explosions differ markedly from the carefully controlled ones set up for filming, but because most people only see the filmed ones, they think they’re real.
I see no inconsistency in the photos and the explanations given by Snopes. As for bouncing, think of skipping a flat rock off water and you’ll see how planes can bounce. If the plane was coming in low, close to the ground, at high speed, you really should expect to see a bounce if it hits the ground at all. It’ll only plow into the ground and leave a long trail if the trajectory is high enough, if it’s coming down at a high angle.
Snicks
Airplane wings are not uniform in cross section - as I said earlier, they’re mostly empty air, or fuel tank. Large, hollow spaces. But they do have a very solid, very heavy spar that provides support for wings. It is quite plausible that it would bend back, but not break After all, THAT’s the main support for the airplane in flight.
So, the wings hit, the lightweight aluminum crushes, the spars bend back toward the tail, further crushing the lighter aluminum behind them, and as long as the spars don’t break off completely they’re going to drag the bulk of the wing material into the building with them.
Well, the 9/11 commission report seemed to indicate that it would be a miracle for them to have shot the plane. They really didn’t know what was going on. They’d scrambled military jets, but didn’t know where to send them.
Of course, if you doubt the official story, then you can probably also find fault with the 9/11 commission report. However, you might feel better informed having read it, at least the first chapter (which is as far as I got).
Don’t forget that we’re talking about one of the most important government buildings that’s filled with sensitive information and projects. I would imagine that they’d prefer to keep the structural integrity and defense mechanisms as obscure as possible. I, for one, wouldn’t like the idea of terrorists being able to watch footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon in order to hunt out the weak points and devise a more destructive way of attacking it in the future.
The fact that people are so eager to assume the government is awash with evil conspiracies makes me hestitant to question the claim that 50% of people are stupid. I imagine they feel proud of themselves and figure that they’re superior because their ‘keen senses’ are able to detect these malicious plans that all experts on the matter just happened to miss.
Fer’ cryin out loud. Time and again I see it stated that the hole left by the plane was too small, how did the engines get into the building if they didn’t make a hole, why didn’t the wings do any damage?
The simple answer is only tangentially to do with aluminium, explosions etc. The simple answer is that the above questions are total bollocks based on a false premise.
Check out the photo against question number 5. Yes, I know its a webpage run by a conspiracy theorist crackpot, but nonetheless the photo is presumably genuine, since it goes entirely against his own pet theory. Ignore the caption. Just look at the photo, which shows the hole in and damage to the pentagon. Look at the outline of the 757 and where the engines are. Look at the damage at ground level in particular.
There is no need to explain why there was only a small hole: there wasn’t.
There is no need to explain any mystery about how the engines got into the building: there’s a great big hole in the building at least as wide as the span of the engines
There is no need to explain why the wings did no damage: they did. The damage is not as heavy as that made by the fuselage in the centre: does anyone in their right mind actually need to have this explained to them?
That the damage to either side of the main hole matches in span almost exactly the superimposed width of a 757’s wings is of course a complete effin co-incidence. It is well known that the blast radius of a missile is precisely the width of a 757’s wings. And a duck’s quack doesn’t echo.
Broomstick, among others, has done an admirable job of explaining how and why the wings would fold. I’ll merely add this: Think back to the video of the second WTC plane hitting the second tower. Recall how the wings seemed to tuck back along the fuselage as the plane disappeared into the building. Remember how, for an instant, the plane was wholly swallowed up inside the building before the explosion erupted.
I for one will never forget that sequence of images. If those wings could fold back in collision with a building far less crash-resistant than the Pentagon, then why on earth should the Pentagon plane’s wings not have done the same? Sure, they were also shattering into millions of fragments, but their inertia would be carrying them forward at hundreds of miles per hour.
Princhester, that is hilarious. I love it when quacks prove themselves to be what they are. It’s one thing to call them ridiculous, but when they use they’re own evidence to do it… hee hee hee.
Hey FinnAgain, I feel for you. You seemed to be getting the shit end of the stick here. I saw that you were just trying to get answers to what seem like valid questions, and suddenly it’s “your” theory. But don’t worry folks, I think you’ve concinced him.
Oh, and BTW, I work intimately with Moon rocks returned from the Apollo program, and I can tell you first hand that the whole Moon landing was faked. I mean fer chrissake people, they’re basalts!
Seems as if the only support for the “missile” theory are two guys who said “it sounded like a missile.” Not “I saw a missile,” but “it sounded like a missile.”
Now, if they had said, “it sounded like a freight train,” I might lend some credence, since I (and presumably they) have actually heard a freight train. I (and presumably they, and probably most dopers) really don’t know what a missile sounds like as it flies by into a reinforced building.
Second, According to Mr. Miskatonic’s cite the black boxes were recovered from the crash cite. Why put a black box on a missile?
Finally, many of the things that “don’t add up” are based on peoples’ projection of phenomena they are familiar with onto things they know little about. Granted, the Warner Brothers school of physics dictates that there should be a perfect 757-shaped hole neatly punched through the side of the Pentagon. However, as pointed out, at speeds and energies beyond those we encounter on a daily basis, all bets are off.
So basically, the theory comes from the observation that they cannot find parts of the plane in the Pentagon damage images, but if someone shows some pictures with plane wreckage it’s a fake. That’s hilarious!
