Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 metres (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Are there absolutely no videos/photos of the 777 approaching the pentagon.?
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 metres (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Why not?
I doubt the Boeing engineers were thinking wall penetration when designing those wings.
That's basically all the conspiracy has, the disbelief of people who don't have any idea what is and is not plausible when a Boeing777 hits a large building.
Incidentally, what did the wings do to the side of the WTC towers, which weren't as strong as the Pentagon walls?
I doubt the Boeing engineers were thinking wall penetration when designing those wings.
That's basically all the conspiracy has, the disbelief of people who don't have any idea what is and is not plausible when a Boeing777 hits a large building.
Incidentally, what did the wings do to the side of the WTC towers, which weren't as strong as the Pentagon walls?
Yeah, but look at the size of the holes? Especially the ones with the firemen standing in them. There is no way those holes are large enough for the fuselage of a 757/777. The firemen could reach the top if they stood on toes.
If the fuselage did punch such a circular hole, where is the evidence of the holes made by the engines, if they travelled so far into the building.
Shouldn't this perfectly circular hole be elliptical at the very least, allowing for the fact that where the wings join the fuselage, is the thickest/strongest part of the wing.
The engines are pretty close to the fuselage - see schematics link. The hole should be at least 70 feet wide on the exterior edge of the pentagon, which it clearly is not.
I dont believe the fuselage would punch a neat hole of exact size, that the engines punched 2 holes of 5 feet diameter, 33 feet either side of this, but the wings folded up and went through an 8 foot hole leaving no evidence of thier impact, while the rest of the building between the 3 holes stayed perfectly intact. C'mon explain that too me?
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 meters (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Are there absolutely no videos/photos of the 777 approaching the pentagon.?
Eh? Why does the video keep refering to a 757?
Ever seen a car accident? Door mirrors get damaged in many cases but remain attached to the car event in in violent crashes. There are a lot of cables, wires, and fuel lines running through the wings of an aircraft along with structural members which would easily cause disattached wings to stay with the aircraft.
Another point: look at the huge fireball. Missles do not make huge fireballs like that. The fireball is wasted energy unless the intent of the weapon is the fireball in which case the explosion would not have done that much damage.
This analysis was done assuming the wings would stay intact. This is a very inaccurate scenario because aluminum is fairly brittle and clacks easily; however, steel plumbing and steel encased copper wires and steel cables are much stronger. Easily strong enough to pull two wings through a hole with them.
There's an internet video of a crab getting sucked into a tiny-tiny hole in an under ocean pipe. While it may seem impossible at first the reality is it happens. During car accidents, mirrors get crushed and knocked around but remain attach to the steel cable used to adjust the mirror.
Yeah, but look at the size of the holes? Especially the ones with the firemen standing in them. There is no way those holes are large enough for the fuselage of a 757/777. The firemen could reach the top if they stood on toes.
If the fuselage did punch such a circular hole, where is the evidence of the holes made by the engines, if they travelled so far into the building.
Shouldn't this perfectly circular hole be elliptical at the very least, allowing for the fact that where the wings join the fuselage, is the thickest/strongest part of the wing.
The engines are pretty close to the fuselage - see schematics link. The hole should be at least 70 feet wide on the exterior edge of the pentagon, which it clearly is not.
I dont believe the fuselage would punch a neat hole of exact size, that the engines punched 2 holes of 5 feet diameter, 33 feet either side of this, but the wings folded up and went through an 8 foot hole leaving no evidence of thier impact, while the rest of the building between the 3 holes stayed perfectly intact. C'mon explain that too me?
One last response I guess...
The fuselage would be nothing more than a heap of shrapnel shooting through the building after the initial impact. Have you ever shot a 30-6 at an animal or watermelon? Small hole in bigger hole out. A moderate sized piece of debris--say a 100lb 4'x4' chunk initially traveling at 500+ MPH has a hell of a lot of momentum. Easily enough keep pounding through wall after wall leaving holes which appear small when compared to an aircraft fuselage but are the right size when looking at the actual size of the debris doing the damage.
Wasn't that graphics orignally intended to bolster the "where's the plane?" case? It seems that some of the consporacy theorists expect the aircraft to stop dead a few feet into the Pentagon and fall into chunks. Most of the peices of wreckage and fuel would be end up inside the building, carried there by their momentum.
A moderate sized piece of debris--say a 100lb 4'x4' chunk initially traveling at 500+ MPH has a hell of a lot of momentum. Easily enough keep pounding through wall after wall leaving holes which appear small when compared to an aircraft fuselage but are the right size when looking at the actual size of the debris doing the damage.
Why was no evidence of the plane found in the building? And the fuel? The fuel is a huge question. People on the ground floor of the WTC towers were burned by the fuel that travelled 80+ floors down the elevator shafts. What would have happened on the ground at the Pentagon?
The snopes.com story regurgitates the official version, and does not address so many unanswered questions. Why the questions? Because we have not been presented with any satisfactory explanations or answers. It's a simple as that, and no conspiracy theory is needed. A number of other inconsistencies with the Snopes story:
The ONE engine found in the Pentagon wreckage (talked about in that army link) was some 3 or 4 feet in diameter. whereas the TWO engines of a Boeing 757 are 9 feet in diameter.
Where is the heavy landing gear and undercarriage? If it was hot enough to obliterate all traces of the plane...seats, fuselage, engines, etc...how come enough DNA was discovered to identify all the passengers? Or was there no real DNA analysis?
Then there's the Snopes paragraph about the speculation that a smaller plane had hit the WTC as the external damage seemed inconsistent with a large commercial plane: This is nonsense...the entry holes in both WTC towers are an exact match for the height and wingspan of the planes comprising Flights 11 and 175.
How come the windows of the Pentagon at exactly the height of where the wings should have hit remained intact?
Some of those cable spools are in the flight path...according to the official version the plane flew a few feet above the ground, but the cable spools, standing taller than an average man, remain undamaged,
The sole 5 frames of security video released by the Pentagon "showing a plane" in the first frame and a developing fireball in the next 4 have a huge problem. The first frame has been titled by Pentagon as "Plane"...but no Boeing 757 is visible in that frame. A small tailplane (far smaller than a 757s), appears silhouetted against the horizon, but no fuselage is visible: the aircraft was small enough to be hidden by the object in the foreground....also the dates and timecode on the Pantagon frames refer to 12 September 2001 and the time was late afternoon. This is a problem in itself...re both the timestamp and the content. Has anyone heard of Adobe Photoshop?
Even while they were fighting the fire, there was a long line of dozens of Pentagon staffers repeatedly working their way from one end of that lawn to the other and back, removing and bagging debris, a flagrant violation of all standard police procedure for gathering evidence. It is ILLEGAL to tamper with or alter a crime scene.
there is far far more....
You cannot lump legitimate questioning with black helicopter territory, especially when there are so many questions to be answered....and not just with the Pentagon part of the event, but with *every* aspect of 911..including the status of a number of the apparent hijackers themselves (at least 6 have turned up alive!), there were no Arabs on the flight manifests, the way both towers collapsed, the bizarre collapse of WTC#7 a 47 story office block that owner Larry Silverstein authorized to be "pulled" (demolished), the fact that the USAF was stood down, the probabilty that Flight 93 was shot down (rather than was brought down by the heroic actions of passengers), ....and every aspect of the official version of 9-11....right down to the bin Laden "smoking gun" tape 'found' in Kandahar being a fraud....
Why was no evidence of the plane found in the building? And the fuel? The fuel is a huge question. People on the ground floor of the WTC towers were burned by the fuel that travelled 80+ floors down the elevator shafts. What would have happened on the ground at the Pentagon?
Did you look at any of the links in my first post? Debris was found. The pic in my first post shows a piece od fuselage. Aluminum burns like magnesium so much of the metal was destroyed. Molybdnum OTOH can withstand substantial temps which is why there was engine debris still present.
The snopes.com story regurgitates the official version, and does not address so many unanswered questions. Why the questions? Because we have not been presented with any satisfactory explanations or answers. It's a simple as that, and no conspiracy theory is needed. A number of other inconsistencies with the Snopes story:
The ONE engine found in the Pentagon wreckage (talked about in that army link) was some 3 or 4 feet in diameter. whereas the TWO engines of a Boeing 757 are 9 feet in diameter.
Where is the heavy landing gear and undercarriage? If it was hot enough to obliterate all traces of the plane...seats, fuselage, engines, etc...how come enough DNA was discovered to identify all the passengers? Or was there no real DNA analysis?
Then there's the Snopes paragraph about the speculation that a smaller plane had hit the WTC as the external damage seemed inconsistent with a large commercial plane: This is nonsense...the entry holes in both WTC towers are an exact match for the height and wingspan of the planes comprising Flights 11 and 175.
How come the windows of the Pentagon at exactly the height of where the wings should have hit remained intact?
The sole 5 frames of security video released by the Pentagon "showing a plane" in the first frame and a developing fireball in the next 4 have a huge problem. The first frame has been titled by Pentagon as "Plane"...but no Boeing 757 is visible in that frame. A small tailplane (far smaller than a 757s), appears silhouetted against the horizon, but no fuselage is visible: the aircraft was small enough to be hidden by the object in the foreground....also the dates and timecode on the Pantagon frames refer to 12 September 2001 and the time was late afternoon. This is a problem in itself...re both the timestamp and the content. Has anyone heard of Adobe Photoshop?
Even while they were fighting the fire, there was a long line of dozens of Pentagon staffers repeatedly working their way from one end of that lawn to the other and back, removing and bagging debris, a flagrant violation of all standard police procedure for gathering evidence. It is ILLEGAL to tamper with or alter a crime scene.
there is far far more....
You cannot lump legitimate questioning with black helicopter territory, especially when there are so many questions to be answered....and not just with the Pentagon part of the event, but with *every* aspect of 911..including the status of a number of the apparent hijackers themselves (at least 6 have turned up alive!), there were no Arabs on the flight manifests, the way both towers collapsed, the bizarre collapse of WTC#7 a 47 story office block that owner Larry Silverstein authorized to be "pulled" (demolished), the fact that the USAF was stood down, the probabilty that Flight 93 was shot down (rather than was brought down by the heroic actions of passengers), ....and every aspect of the official version of 9-11....right down to the bin Laden "smoking gun" tape 'found' in Kandahar being a fraud....
The engine are not 9' in diameter. The outer housing(aluminum) may be, however, the gas turbine is not that large. Take some engineering classes... Materials, Dynamics, even Engineering Physids... You'll see your concerns are not well placed in this instance. It was a plane. It was a large plane that struck the pentagon. It was a fast moving plane that struck the pentagon. 500+ MPH is faster than most cameras can clearly record.
Another point: look at the huge fireball. Missles do not make huge fireballs like that. The fireball is wasted energy unless the intent of the weapon is the fireball in which case the explosion would not have done that much damage.
This analysis was done assuming the wings would stay intact. This is a very inaccurate scenario because aluminum is fairly brittle and clacks easily; however, steel plumbing and steel encased copper wires and steel cables are much stronger. Easily strong enough to pull two wings through a hole with them.
IRT to the wings, show me one plane crash where the wings folded back along the fuseloge instead of shearing off. If you look at the WTC footage, there are clearly oblong holes made by the fuseloge and wings. The buildings are even of similar construction, stone/concrete backed by substantial steel reinforcement. Granted, the Pentagon is somewhat 'tougher' than the WTC, but the wings should have done something to the outside of the wall.
I am not sold on the bomb/missle theory myself, but personally I believe we don't know everything about 9/11 either. An attack by Muslim Terrorists is the most likely cause, but there are many questions unanswered. Apparently 7 of the terrorists are still alive, the video with Bin Laden claiming responsibility is a fake, there is no record of any phone calls made from the "Let's roll" Pensylvania flight, etc, etc...
If I had to guess given the information presented here, as far as not being an airplane, I would say shaped charge warheads(make nice round holes) to breach the outer wall, followed closely by an FAE to cause the fireball/explosion.
And IIRC, the flight in question was a 757, not 777?
As an aside, I have an uncle who's been flying Boeings for AA his whole adult life, and he says he would have had high difficulty flying the high speed/nap of earth flight profile (to stay off the radar) taken by the 9/11 aircraft. So we're supposed to believe some guys with a few hours in Cessnas flew that day? These are huge, heavy, cumbersome aircraft, not military jets that routinely do things like that. Try it in a good PC/Mac flight simulator program sometime and see what I mean.
[B]Did you look at any of the links in my first post? Debris was found. The pic in my first post shows a piece od fuselage. Aluminum burns like magnesium so much of the metal was destroyed. Molybdnum OTOH can withstand substantial temps which is why there was engine debris still present.
Those parts look like airplane wreckage for sure but there is a lack of reference in (most of) these pictures to verify both the scale and location of the wreckage. Where did the pictures come from? In any investigation, all side have to be held to the same standard.
Comments
Originally posted by burningwheel
this is VERY interesting
edit>link is a flash
no it isn't
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by jwri004
I wonder how this thread will pan out.....
Probably just as well as this one!
If a Boeing 777 could not have done the damage, what "commuter" plane could have? Or military jet?
Was it a missile or a plane?
But it was in a Flash movie!
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=106
http://www.scanair.no/typer/777-200-3view.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...777200-06.html
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 metres (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Are there absolutely no videos/photos of the 777 approaching the pentagon.?
Eh? Why does the video keep refering to a 757?
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 metres (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Why not?
I doubt the Boeing engineers were thinking wall penetration when designing those wings.
That's basically all the conspiracy has, the disbelief of people who don't have any idea what is and is not plausible when a Boeing777 hits a large building.
Incidentally, what did the wings do to the side of the WTC towers, which weren't as strong as the Pentagon walls?
Originally posted by groverat
Why not?
I doubt the Boeing engineers were thinking wall penetration when designing those wings.
That's basically all the conspiracy has, the disbelief of people who don't have any idea what is and is not plausible when a Boeing777 hits a large building.
Incidentally, what did the wings do to the side of the WTC towers, which weren't as strong as the Pentagon walls?
Yeah, but look at the size of the holes? Especially the ones with the firemen standing in them. There is no way those holes are large enough for the fuselage of a 757/777. The firemen could reach the top if they stood on toes.
If the fuselage did punch such a circular hole, where is the evidence of the holes made by the engines, if they travelled so far into the building.
Shouldn't this perfectly circular hole be elliptical at the very least, allowing for the fact that where the wings join the fuselage, is the thickest/strongest part of the wing.
The engines are pretty close to the fuselage - see schematics link. The hole should be at least 70 feet wide on the exterior edge of the pentagon, which it clearly is not.
I dont believe the fuselage would punch a neat hole of exact size, that the engines punched 2 holes of 5 feet diameter, 33 feet either side of this, but the wings folded up and went through an 8 foot hole leaving no evidence of thier impact, while the rest of the building between the 3 holes stayed perfectly intact. C'mon explain that too me?
Originally posted by MarcUK
I dont buy this, but I cant help wonder where the the Wings went? I simply cannot see how they disappeared into the hole made by the fuselage.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=106
http://www.scanair.no/typer/777-200-3view.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...777200-06.html
There is no fucking way the wings which measure about 27 meters (90feet) in each direction, folded themselves neatly up at 90 degress to go through the 7 metre (22 feet) hole the fuselage would punch.
Are there absolutely no videos/photos of the 777 approaching the pentagon.?
Eh? Why does the video keep refering to a 757?
Ever seen a car accident? Door mirrors get damaged in many cases but remain attached to the car event in in violent crashes. There are a lot of cables, wires, and fuel lines running through the wings of an aircraft along with structural members which would easily cause disattached wings to stay with the aircraft.
Another point: look at the huge fireball. Missles do not make huge fireballs like that. The fireball is wasted energy unless the intent of the weapon is the fireball in which case the explosion would not have done that much damage.
Here, an example of flawed analysis: http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/200...40_comment.php
This analysis was done assuming the wings would stay intact. This is a very inaccurate scenario because aluminum is fairly brittle and clacks easily; however, steel plumbing and steel encased copper wires and steel cables are much stronger. Easily strong enough to pull two wings through a hole with them.
There's an internet video of a crab getting sucked into a tiny-tiny hole in an under ocean pipe. While it may seem impossible at first the reality is it happens. During car accidents, mirrors get crushed and knocked around but remain attach to the steel cable used to adjust the mirror.
Here is some proof against the missile strike idea: http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm
And some more: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Here's that neat little hole that's been mentioned:
Note the piece of debris center bottom of the picture. Looks like a pieces of fuselage to me.
Anyway, enough about this from me at least.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Yeah, but look at the size of the holes? Especially the ones with the firemen standing in them. There is no way those holes are large enough for the fuselage of a 757/777. The firemen could reach the top if they stood on toes.
If the fuselage did punch such a circular hole, where is the evidence of the holes made by the engines, if they travelled so far into the building.
Shouldn't this perfectly circular hole be elliptical at the very least, allowing for the fact that where the wings join the fuselage, is the thickest/strongest part of the wing.
The engines are pretty close to the fuselage - see schematics link. The hole should be at least 70 feet wide on the exterior edge of the pentagon, which it clearly is not.
I dont believe the fuselage would punch a neat hole of exact size, that the engines punched 2 holes of 5 feet diameter, 33 feet either side of this, but the wings folded up and went through an 8 foot hole leaving no evidence of thier impact, while the rest of the building between the 3 holes stayed perfectly intact. C'mon explain that too me?
One last response I guess...
The fuselage would be nothing more than a heap of shrapnel shooting through the building after the initial impact. Have you ever shot a 30-6 at an animal or watermelon? Small hole in bigger hole out. A moderate sized piece of debris--say a 100lb 4'x4' chunk initially traveling at 500+ MPH has a hell of a lot of momentum. Easily enough keep pounding through wall after wall leaving holes which appear small when compared to an aircraft fuselage but are the right size when looking at the actual size of the debris doing the damage.
[edit]found a good graphic
Originally posted by faust9
A moderate sized piece of debris--say a 100lb 4'x4' chunk initially traveling at 500+ MPH has a hell of a lot of momentum. Easily enough keep pounding through wall after wall leaving holes which appear small when compared to an aircraft fuselage but are the right size when looking at the actual size of the debris doing the damage.
Why was no evidence of the plane found in the building? And the fuel? The fuel is a huge question. People on the ground floor of the WTC towers were burned by the fuel that travelled 80+ floors down the elevator shafts. What would have happened on the ground at the Pentagon?
Originally posted by applenut
no it isn't
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm [/B]
The snopes.com story regurgitates the official version, and does not address so many unanswered questions. Why the questions? Because we have not been presented with any satisfactory explanations or answers. It's a simple as that, and no conspiracy theory is needed. A number of other inconsistencies with the Snopes story:
The ONE engine found in the Pentagon wreckage (talked about in that army link) was some 3 or 4 feet in diameter. whereas the TWO engines of a Boeing 757 are 9 feet in diameter.
Where is the heavy landing gear and undercarriage? If it was hot enough to obliterate all traces of the plane...seats, fuselage, engines, etc...how come enough DNA was discovered to identify all the passengers? Or was there no real DNA analysis?
Then there's the Snopes paragraph about the speculation that a smaller plane had hit the WTC as the external damage seemed inconsistent with a large commercial plane: This is nonsense...the entry holes in both WTC towers are an exact match for the height and wingspan of the planes comprising Flights 11 and 175.
How come the windows of the Pentagon at exactly the height of where the wings should have hit remained intact?
Some of those cable spools are in the flight path...according to the official version the plane flew a few feet above the ground, but the cable spools, standing taller than an average man, remain undamaged,
The sole 5 frames of security video released by the Pentagon "showing a plane" in the first frame and a developing fireball in the next 4 have a huge problem. The first frame has been titled by Pentagon as "Plane"...but no Boeing 757 is visible in that frame. A small tailplane (far smaller than a 757s), appears silhouetted against the horizon, but no fuselage is visible: the aircraft was small enough to be hidden by the object in the foreground....also the dates and timecode on the Pantagon frames refer to 12 September 2001 and the time was late afternoon. This is a problem in itself...re both the timestamp and the content. Has anyone heard of Adobe Photoshop?
Even while they were fighting the fire, there was a long line of dozens of Pentagon staffers repeatedly working their way from one end of that lawn to the other and back, removing and bagging debris, a flagrant violation of all standard police procedure for gathering evidence. It is ILLEGAL to tamper with or alter a crime scene.
there is far far more....
You cannot lump legitimate questioning with black helicopter territory, especially when there are so many questions to be answered....and not just with the Pentagon part of the event, but with *every* aspect of 911..including the status of a number of the apparent hijackers themselves (at least 6 have turned up alive!), there were no Arabs on the flight manifests, the way both towers collapsed, the bizarre collapse of WTC#7 a 47 story office block that owner Larry Silverstein authorized to be "pulled" (demolished), the fact that the USAF was stood down, the probabilty that Flight 93 was shot down (rather than was brought down by the heroic actions of passengers), ....and every aspect of the official version of 9-11....right down to the bin Laden "smoking gun" tape 'found' in Kandahar being a fraud....
Originally posted by bunge
Why was no evidence of the plane found in the building? And the fuel? The fuel is a huge question. People on the ground floor of the WTC towers were burned by the fuel that travelled 80+ floors down the elevator shafts. What would have happened on the ground at the Pentagon?
Did you look at any of the links in my first post? Debris was found. The pic in my first post shows a piece od fuselage. Aluminum burns like magnesium so much of the metal was destroyed. Molybdnum OTOH can withstand substantial temps which is why there was engine debris still present.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The snopes.com story regurgitates the official version, and does not address so many unanswered questions. Why the questions? Because we have not been presented with any satisfactory explanations or answers. It's a simple as that, and no conspiracy theory is needed. A number of other inconsistencies with the Snopes story:
The ONE engine found in the Pentagon wreckage (talked about in that army link) was some 3 or 4 feet in diameter. whereas the TWO engines of a Boeing 757 are 9 feet in diameter.
Where is the heavy landing gear and undercarriage? If it was hot enough to obliterate all traces of the plane...seats, fuselage, engines, etc...how come enough DNA was discovered to identify all the passengers? Or was there no real DNA analysis?
Then there's the Snopes paragraph about the speculation that a smaller plane had hit the WTC as the external damage seemed inconsistent with a large commercial plane: This is nonsense...the entry holes in both WTC towers are an exact match for the height and wingspan of the planes comprising Flights 11 and 175.
How come the windows of the Pentagon at exactly the height of where the wings should have hit remained intact?
The sole 5 frames of security video released by the Pentagon "showing a plane" in the first frame and a developing fireball in the next 4 have a huge problem. The first frame has been titled by Pentagon as "Plane"...but no Boeing 757 is visible in that frame. A small tailplane (far smaller than a 757s), appears silhouetted against the horizon, but no fuselage is visible: the aircraft was small enough to be hidden by the object in the foreground....also the dates and timecode on the Pantagon frames refer to 12 September 2001 and the time was late afternoon. This is a problem in itself...re both the timestamp and the content. Has anyone heard of Adobe Photoshop?
Even while they were fighting the fire, there was a long line of dozens of Pentagon staffers repeatedly working their way from one end of that lawn to the other and back, removing and bagging debris, a flagrant violation of all standard police procedure for gathering evidence. It is ILLEGAL to tamper with or alter a crime scene.
there is far far more....
You cannot lump legitimate questioning with black helicopter territory, especially when there are so many questions to be answered....and not just with the Pentagon part of the event, but with *every* aspect of 911..including the status of a number of the apparent hijackers themselves (at least 6 have turned up alive!), there were no Arabs on the flight manifests, the way both towers collapsed, the bizarre collapse of WTC#7 a 47 story office block that owner Larry Silverstein authorized to be "pulled" (demolished), the fact that the USAF was stood down, the probabilty that Flight 93 was shot down (rather than was brought down by the heroic actions of passengers), ....and every aspect of the official version of 9-11....right down to the bin Laden "smoking gun" tape 'found' in Kandahar being a fraud....
The engine are not 9' in diameter. The outer housing(aluminum) may be, however, the gas turbine is not that large. Take some engineering classes... Materials, Dynamics, even Engineering Physids... You'll see your concerns are not well placed in this instance. It was a plane. It was a large plane that struck the pentagon. It was a fast moving plane that struck the pentagon. 500+ MPH is faster than most cameras can clearly record.
Recording rate: 32 frames/sec.
Speed of plane: 777.33 feet/sec
feet coverd per frame: 24...
No wonder the plane is blury.
Originally posted by faust9
Another point: look at the huge fireball. Missles do not make huge fireballs like that. The fireball is wasted energy unless the intent of the weapon is the fireball in which case the explosion would not have done that much damage.
Here, an example of flawed analysis: http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/200...40_comment.php
This analysis was done assuming the wings would stay intact. This is a very inaccurate scenario because aluminum is fairly brittle and clacks easily; however, steel plumbing and steel encased copper wires and steel cables are much stronger. Easily strong enough to pull two wings through a hole with them.
IRT the fireball, ever heard of a Fuel/Air bomb?
Fuel Air Explosive
IRT to the wings, show me one plane crash where the wings folded back along the fuseloge instead of shearing off. If you look at the WTC footage, there are clearly oblong holes made by the fuseloge and wings. The buildings are even of similar construction, stone/concrete backed by substantial steel reinforcement. Granted, the Pentagon is somewhat 'tougher' than the WTC, but the wings should have done something to the outside of the wall.
I am not sold on the bomb/missle theory myself, but personally I believe we don't know everything about 9/11 either. An attack by Muslim Terrorists is the most likely cause, but there are many questions unanswered. Apparently 7 of the terrorists are still alive, the video with Bin Laden claiming responsibility is a fake, there is no record of any phone calls made from the "Let's roll" Pensylvania flight, etc, etc...
If I had to guess given the information presented here, as far as not being an airplane, I would say shaped charge warheads(make nice round holes) to breach the outer wall, followed closely by an FAE to cause the fireball/explosion.
And IIRC, the flight in question was a 757, not 777?
As an aside, I have an uncle who's been flying Boeings for AA his whole adult life, and he says he would have had high difficulty flying the high speed/nap of earth flight profile (to stay off the radar) taken by the 9/11 aircraft. So we're supposed to believe some guys with a few hours in Cessnas flew that day? These are huge, heavy, cumbersome aircraft, not military jets that routinely do things like that. Try it in a good PC/Mac flight simulator program sometime and see what I mean.
Originally posted by faust9
[B]Did you look at any of the links in my first post? Debris was found. The pic in my first post shows a piece od fuselage. Aluminum burns like magnesium so much of the metal was destroyed. Molybdnum OTOH can withstand substantial temps which is why there was engine debris still present.
Those parts look like airplane wreckage for sure but there is a lack of reference in (most of) these pictures to verify both the scale and location of the wreckage. Where did the pictures come from? In any investigation, all side have to be held to the same standard.