do you think there are going to be pieces of it laying around? when the towers were hit nobody was asking what happened to those planes? 737 going 400 mph full of fuel. the simply explode, burn up.
my aunt retired from the air force a few years ago. she had to go to a site where a jet hit a monutain. the biggest part of anything was the size of the face of a men's watch. there was just nothing left. no bodies, no parts, no sheet metal, nada.
besides, if it didn't hit the pentagon, where did it go?
IP: Logged
07:40 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Planes are made of aluminum a soft metal with a low melting point. The knetic energy would have been used up busting through the wall. The plane ended up as a molten puddle inside the building.
IP: Logged
08:08 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
Planes are made of aluminum a soft metal with a low melting point. The knetic energy would have been used up busting through the wall. The plane ended up as a molten puddle inside the building.
Except for the little problem that the wingspan is wider than the hole in the building.
even soft aluminum traveling at 300 knots leaves marks when it hits something--not to mention those things called wings will shear off.
So where are the wing impact marks on the building---and for that matter, where are the wings ?
They arent inside that hole unless Boeing has come up with some new-fangled folding-wing mechanism that instantly stramlines them back against the fuselage in case of impact.
IP: Logged
08:33 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
i'm not an aircraft expert, or anything close to it. but a 737 has a wingspan of 93-112 feet. lets assume that the ladder trucks are 40 ft long. you could easily get two trucks end to end inside that hole. might have ben a few feet left to hit the building.
then you have to think about what would be left of them hitting a stationary object that fast. i don't think they would just "break off" and you'd be able to see them. then consider even if they did break off, depending on the angle they could have easily fallen back into the impact site.
there are a lot of things i question about 9/11 but the four planes that were hijacked and destroyed are not among them.
IP: Logged
09:00 PM
PFF
System Bot
MsLoriFiero Member
Posts: 695 From: Lester AL USA Registered: May 2003
Think about this, the plane came down at an angle and wasn't flying level when it hit the building, nor were the wings level when it hit, so looking at that hole,you can see how the plane hit. I have also seem videos taken by the security cameras that showed it was definitely a plane hitting the building.
Lori
[This message has been edited by MsLoriFiero (edited 09-16-2006).]
IP: Logged
09:33 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Reinforced concrete isn't newfangled at all. And the wings would be no match for it.
But it does seem that there should have been impact marks where the engines struck before the wings bent backwards.
If it were a straight wing aircraft, the wings would have left an imprint. But it is a swept / delta wing sort of thingy.
Where would the wings have hit? For them to hit the side of the building, the pilot would have almost had to be flying level at full throttle several feet off the ground. If he came in at an angle, would the wings hit the building? The ground? The roof? How big is that hole in the building compared to the wingspan of the plane?
Conspiracy theories are intriguing because when you don't have all the info, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusions.
But we do know 4 things that are undisputed about 9/11. Four aircraft were hijacked. This has been verified by the air lines and families of the victims on each flight. Two hit the WTC. One went down in a field in PA.
If the 4th aircraft didn't hit the pentagon, where did it go?
To presume it was something other than a commercial airliner not only involves a leap of fatih with regard to the evidence at the scene, but now you have to account for the 4th hijacked airliner and everyone on board. Was it hijacked and then shot down so a military plane could attack the Pentagon? If so, where's it's wreckage. Did it land somewhere? Then the government took everyone off the plane and either executed them or maybe shipped them off to Gitmo?
Saying it must not have been a plane based on a picture is an easy conclusion to reach, but it opens up so many more questions that have no answers that it just doesn't make sense.
Although cattle mutilations are up this year, so it could be interferance from the aliens housed at Area 51.
IP: Logged
09:56 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: But we do know 4 things that are undisputed about 9/11. Four aircraft were hijacked. This has been verified by the air lines and families of the victims on each flight. Two hit the WTC. One went down in a field in PA.
Dude-
You need to look up the definition of "undisputed"
This thread alone is proof that some of those 4 items are disputed.
I'm not saying that I'm disputing those items. But there definitely are people who are disputing them. Therefore, they are not undisputed.
IP: Logged
10:02 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
Where would the wings have hit? For them to hit the side of the building, the pilot would have almost had to be flying level at full throttle several feet off the ground. If he came in at an angle, would the wings hit the building? The ground? The roof? How big is that hole in the building compared to the wingspan of the plane?
Conspiracy theories are intriguing because when you don't have all the info, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusions.
But we do know 4 things that are undisputed about 9/11. Four aircraft were hijacked. This has been verified by the air lines and families of the victims on each flight. Two hit the WTC. One went down in a field in PA.
If the 4th aircraft didn't hit the pentagon, where did it go?
To presume it was something other than a commercial airliner not only involves a leap of fatih with regard to the evidence at the scene, but now you have to account for the 4th hijacked airliner and everyone on board. Was it hijacked and then shot down so a military plane could attack the Pentagon? If so, where's it's wreckage. Did it land somewhere? Then the government took everyone off the plane and either executed them or maybe shipped them off to Gitmo?
Saying it must not have been a plane based on a picture is an easy conclusion to reach, but it opens up so many more questions that have no answers that it just doesn't make sense.
Although cattle mutilations are up this year, so it could be interferance from the aliens housed at Area 51.
I don't understand why you are replying to me.
My post didn't support any conspiracy theory. Read it again. I, like you, think that picture proves nothing.
I believe that the only way the extents of the wings would have contacted the building is if it were a STRAIGHT WING - like an old byplane or something. Fact is, the engines (which are strongly mounted to the wing spars) would have impacted the wall first, causing the wings themselves to fold backwards long before any portion of the wing ever contacted the building.
[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 09-16-2006).]
IP: Logged
10:04 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
There is a picture in the film "Loose Change" which is claimed to have been taken before this picture. Before the area was engulfed with flame and destroyed by the conflagration.
That picture shows only a 16 foot diameter hole. And no impacts from the engines. IF the picture in "Loose Change" is legitimate, it is far more convincing than this one.
"If you look at a this picture of the hole in the wall of the Pentagon that Flight 77 is supposed to have gone through, it is immediately obvious that Flight 77 could not possibly have caused the damage at the Pentagon. We're usually shown pictures of the wall at the Pentagon after it collapsed at around 10:10 a. m., which of course left a much larger opening and completely destroyed all evidence of the smaller hole left by whatever missile actually caused the damage."
Think about this, the plane came down at an angle and wasn't flying level when it hit the building, nor were the wings level when it hit, so looking at that hole,you can see how the plane hit. I have also seem videos taken by the security cameras that showed it was definitely a plane hitting the building.
Lori
The plane that hit the pentagon? Do you mean the security tapes that they had but will not release except for 3 frames? SHOW ME THE FRAMES THAT SHOW THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON. If so you must be very high up in the political infrastructure to see such classified material. Cant you get in trouble for divulging this critical information?
My main questions about this are... Why was there no investigation before the cleanup began? If they are telling us the whole truth why is there information being withheld? Why cant we see all the videos?
I am not saying that the US gov did this, nor am I saying that planes did ALL the damage. There is a lot of information that we are not being told, I think that we DESERVE all the information when lives will be lost based on decisions we make… or don’t make.
I was raised to believe that if you don’t give all the information then it is just like telling a lie. But, if the gov does it to us its because of national security... What is left to secure? THE BUILDINGS ARE GONE!
slater
[This message has been edited by Slater_334 (edited 09-16-2006).]
IP: Logged
10:22 PM
Sep 17th, 2006
Vonov Member
Posts: 3745 From: Nashville,TN,USA Registered: May 2004
Lol, the physical world ain't like the cartoons, where something runs through an object and leaves a perfect outline. A perfect outline would not have been left by ANY aircraft striking WTC, for two reasons, and in this case, there were three: (A) The exterior of the building was comprised of a vertical steel grid. Not substantial enough to stop the kinetic energy represented by the speed and mass of the airframe striking it, but certainly enough to stand against a hollow structure of sheet aluminum, which brings me to number two: The wings of almost any modern aircraft, except those of carbon fiber/fiberglass monocoque construction, have a steel or aluminum spar around which the aerodynamic structure is built. This spar gives the wing structural strength, and provides a mounting point for any engines mounted on the wings; the part you normally see is the aerodynamic shell of sheet aluminum. That shell is fragile enough that on most wing structures you will see places stenciled "NO STEP" where maintenance personnel are not supposed to walk. In the majority of aircraft built, the main spar does not extend the entire length of the wing; the wing tips of most large aircraft are mostly hollow sheet metal, or plastic of some type. The third reason I mentioned has to do with the sweep of the wings, and the angle at which the aircraft struck the building.
Most of us use the arrow pointer cursor, which is a swept delta shape. Place your mouse cursor directly beneath the solid line below. Notice how one of the sides of the "wings" on the delta is much more at an angle to the line than the other? The less perpendicular of the two sides, in the case of the example I'm using, the right, (on 9/11 the (second) aircraft struck the building at an angle slightly descending and angled with the tail to the left in relation to the building) would leave a wider mark in relation to the "wall" than the other.
The Pentagon (aka Five-Sided Puzzle Palace) was built using massive concrete structures, which are even less likely to yield. The wings MIGHT have left a mark, but chances are fire obliterated them. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 09-18-2006).]
IP: Logged
12:31 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Yeah, and where is flight 175? I saw a video of what I THOUGHT was a 767 hitting the second World Trade Tower at 500 mph but where is the plane? It went in one side but did NOT come out the other side? The WTC was open floor space! The plane should have flown in one window and parts of it SHOULD have come out the other side. Aluminum is stronger than steel you know! Clearly the video is a fake.
[/sarchasm]
IP: Logged
01:01 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
You need to look up the definition of "undisputed"
This thread alone is proof that some of those 4 items are disputed.
I'm not saying that I'm disputing those items. But there definitely are people who are disputing them. Therefore, they are not undisputed.
Then where is the 4th aircraft? A passenger aircraft took off and never landed. If it wasn't the one used to hit the Pentagon, then where did it, the passengers, and crew go, the twilight zone?
The notion that the Pentagon crash was "fake" or "contrived" or an "illusion" is just plain nonsense.
There are leftists, communists, facists and all sorts of wacko's who can contrive very compelling scenarios in their effort to discredit the American government and hoodwink the American people. Example, look at all the conjecture over Kennedy's assassination. The bottom line is Kennedy was shot and 4 planes were hijacked and crashed.
The arguements above that explain how aluminum stands no chance against concrete, how the impact would have folded the wings back like paper, and the heat generated by the substantial amount of jet fuel still aboard incinerating everything, all are evidence that you aren't going to find a survivor, or any significan piece of a survivor (God rest their souls), or any piece of equipment in tact.
400 mph crashes into fixed objects don't generate much left in tact at all.
We should all wake up and smell the coffee. If American, Canadian, & Brit soldiers weren't occupying the resources of the Al quaeda network in Iraq and Afghanistan, those same resources would be thinking up new ways to kill more Americans and Canadians right here at home. And we'd be seeing more destruction than I am willing to contemplate.
Just my .02
Arn
IP: Logged
01:22 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
What most people questioning where the plane is forget is that in a crash where you have wreckage, the pilot was doing everything possible to reduce speed and avoid a crash - to land safely. Even in those cases, hitting nothing more than soft (relatively) ground, the damage is extensive. In this case, the pilot was doing everything possible to increase speed and was trying to crash into reinforced concrete to create the most damage.
IP: Logged
02:06 PM
moleman_in_a_FieroGT Member
Posts: 792 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Apr 2006
Interestingly enough, in the picture in the first link, there's fire damage on the roof of the Pentagon, in the upper right hand corner. I find it hard to believe that a missile would do that. Here's the pic...
Interestingly enough, in the picture in the first link, there's fire damage on the roof of the Pentagon, in the upper right hand corner. I find it hard to believe that a missile would do that. Here's the pic...
I agree, This photo was taken days, weeks, months after the incident. Notice that there are 3 cranes and only one firetruck in this photo. Look at all the upturned dirt and no vegetation. At the time of the picture this was a demolition/construction site. All of the bits and pieces of the plane had been removed prior to this photo.
IP: Logged
02:35 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Originally posted by moleman_in_a_FieroGT: Interestingly enough, in the picture in the first link, there's fire damage on the roof of the Pentagon, in the upper right hand corner. I find it hard to believe that a missile would do that. Here's the pic...
No no, see, it was an incindiary missile. See? There's my undisputable proof.
IP: Logged
03:09 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
Originally posted by Arns85GT: There are leftists, communists, facists and all sorts of wacko's who can contrive very compelling scenarios in their effort to discredit the American government and hoodwink the American people. Example, look at all the conjecture over Kennedy's assassination. The bottom line is Kennedy was shot and 4 planes were hijacked and crashed.
Actually, in the decade preceding the WTC attacks, right wingers were the ones making trouble: -Ruby Ridge -Waco -Oklahoma City -An airplane attack (among other attempts) on the White House / Clinton -Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and other right wingers were the ones discrediting the US gov't.
My first thought when I heard that the WTC had been attacked - It was an inside job perpetrated by another McVeigh / Nichols / etc. group who thought they were fighting the "new world order." Current and/or former military personnel and other right wingers who were unhappy with losing their jobs to military budget cuts, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc.
Is it really that hard to find a few (out of tens of thousands) tired, overworked, paranoid airline pilots who listen to to much talk radio? Perhaps they were divorcees or henpecked husbands who thought they had been raked over the coals by "feminazis."
Of course, if it had been domestic terrorism, that would have turned the ongoing recession into a depression (paranoia of your fellow American tends to do that). The USA needed a war to turn the economy around. So WTC gave us one. Quite fortuitous.
With the lack of disclosure on the part of the administration and the way the administration has used the WTC attacks to further their agenda, it is no surprise that there are those who are suspicious of the official explanation.
[This message has been edited by cccharlie (edited 09-17-2006).]
IP: Logged
03:39 PM
cccharlie Member
Posts: 2006 From: North Smithfield, RI Registered: Jan 2003
It's obviously a conspiracy by the current administration. Afterall, wasn't the WTC attack in 1993 was masterminded by Bill Clinton's administration? Of course, that job was completely bungled.
\sarchasm
IP: Logged
03:55 PM
proff Member
Posts: 7393 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
at first it seem like an Insurance job I hope I am wrong i will look at the rest of the video {loose Change} and get my ideas from all other input when the towers were hit , there were body parts all over the ground. The generated heat didn't burn those up Live video can't lie but the wing span of the plane doesn't fit on the hole in the building
[This message has been edited by proff (edited 09-17-2006).]
IP: Logged
11:13 PM
PFF
System Bot
Sep 18th, 2006
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
leaving a perfect imprint of the crashing whatever in a wall only happens in Road Runner Cartoons.. Cant count how many times ive seen Wylies imprint in walls, cliffs and ground. Planes hitting anything, including the ground ONLY make big holes or spots. I seen lots of planes crash in Viet Nam and never saw an imprint of any part of one anywhere it hit.
IP: Logged
01:30 PM
Vonov Member
Posts: 3745 From: Nashville,TN,USA Registered: May 2004
leaving a perfect imprint of the crashing whatever in a wall only happens in Road Runner Cartoons.. Cant count how many times ive seen Wylies imprint in walls, cliffs and ground. Planes hitting anything, including the ground ONLY make big holes or spots. I seen lots of planes crash in Viet Nam and never saw an imprint of any part of one anywhere it hit.
Thanks, Roger, my point exactly. Oh, and that's Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius...
IP: Logged
01:39 PM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13797 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
The destroyed Pentagon wall was done in by photon torpedos fired by the Klingon Empire during their secret incusion to the Earth. It was a cover up by Bush and his cronies. Nancy Grace is planning to grill the VP over this incident on MSNBC soon.
Alright, I'm tired of people saying our president is a complete and total idiot then they turn around and say he orchestrated these attacks. . .? PICK ONE.
The reason these conspiracy theories exist is because us as a people would rather sit here and believe that so much destruction was caused by something intricate and complex (The US government) rather than a couple of people across the world that just really despised us.
Its the same with the towers. Everyone is like "Wow, they collapsed so quickly, theres no way" From an engineering standpoint, do you realize how much inertia and force is in those top 20 some floors falling just those first 10 feet?
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 09-18-2006).]
IP: Logged
03:02 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by proff: when the towers were hit , there were body parts all over the ground. The generated heat didn't burn those up
There were a LOT of people leaping from windows to their death, too. Falling from 70+ stories onto concrete tends to spread body parts all over the ground.
quote
Originally posted by proff: Live video can't lie but the wing span of the plane doesn't fit on the hole in the building
Live video may not lie, but it can mislead. Not only that, but no video you're going to view now is "live" anymore. By definition, it's been recorded and played back. If you're trying to find live video recordings to prove they were altered, that doesn't work, because by now you can just as easily alter a recording of a "live" video as any other recording.
What is the wingspan of the plane? What is the width of the hole in the Pentagon?
Some of it is vaguely plausible, though extremely unlikely.
