bannerad

911 In Plane Site

Guidoo

Interesting.......but just another load of paranoid/conspiracy crap......

Guido

bannerad

I'm not so sure this is just a result of paranoia or conspiracy, such views are often based from nothing, or at least have little evidence to support them. This, however, has evidence to support it, such as the footage seen around the world of the 9/11 attacks on America (shown by almost every news organization out there).

http://letsroll911.org/
http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=3

The_Neon_Cowboy

it's all bull hocky

__________________

bannerad

Is it?

Falstaff

You want consipiracy theories? How about the guy that was the lead investigator for the FBI, going after Bin Ladens henchmen after the USS COLE disaster, he was dismissed and eventually died in one of the Twin Towers. He was so close that the Clinton Administration didnt want to dig any deeper into the Saudi government connection nor lose diplomatic ties with other nations in that area. It is an interesting story, and government complicity was suggested in his death.
Yes it is, because the aircraft were all checked and certified before they were allowed to fly, there is contradictory footage of the planes taking off and security footage of passengers being screened prior to the flight, and extremely profound video and photographic evidence to further refute the claims on this site.....What a load of Malarky

__________________

mike2h

when i first saw this horrible event (the day it happened) i told my wife the hole & dmg looked to small for a big jetliner. i have no idea what happened & have no 'theory'. i just think we do not know all the facts. & may never know.

__________________

Falstaff

This was very very interesting

Although it is old news, the Clinton Adminstration will be remembered for what it didnt do, and the people it stepped on the preserve the fragile alliances with our muslim nieghbors.

__________________

Dom

I find it strange that there was never any debris of the aircraft shown, ever. Also the plane left no crater in the lawn, nor any damage. The hole left in the Pentagon is far to small for a 747 to fit in, even after collapse. There are no wing marks, nothing...

El Kapitano

It's all a bit clinical for my liking, like various people have observed where' are the wings, tails -debris even. Only one engine (parts) was shown.

This I'll have to read more about.

The_Neon_Cowboy

Whats you point the wings would out sheared off and been the first thing cleaned up... or couseding thier full of gas and wings and plane is made of ubber thin aluminum... it's like a cherry bomb in a pop can....

__________________

bannerad

My point, Mr. Neon, is that there is no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, but outstanding evidence that something else did.

The plane's wings being sheared is inconsistant with the planes that hit the WTCs. There are no holes where the wings would of hit, which is also inconsistant with the other planes that hit the WTCs...

These were taken right as the fire figters reached the scene. Note that the facade from left to right of the images is approximately the same location of the images I posted after the collapse. Notice that there is only a very small hole, and no holes where the wings should be. If they were sheared off, where are they? They could not have been removed that quickly (only about ten mintues after inpact) and even if they were, where's the construction equipment that would of been needed to remove them? If the wings where nearly destroyed, where's the debris?


Above are images of the impact, the first was right before impact and the second was right after, there are no images of a plane actually striking the Pentagon. And only one camera caught this, the most secure facility in the US apparently only had one security camera viewing this side of the building, and this camera was positioned at the entrance gate.

Note that in all the pictures there is no damage to the lawn, despite a 757 crashing there.

bannerad

The question is not whether the passengers boarded flights 11, 22, and etc. but whether those planes were indeed the same ones that hit the Pentagon.

One eyewitness reported (whom is a Fox News employee) that the first plane to hit the WTCs, the second tower, had "no windows".

Let us be honest here, there is more evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, than did. Or in the very least enough evidence for an independent investigation to be performed.

The_Neon_Cowboy

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

I bet you'll eat this up....................... from a website




there are all kinds of besar clams

__________________

bannerad

I, again point to the impact marks, there are no impact marks from where the wings should have hit.

Actually, no I'm NOT missing any frames nor were they tampered with. If you would have actually looked at the pictures you would see the object IS there, however, it is impossible to tell what it is. And, as I've said many times, if that object is a plane, there are no impact marks of where the wigns should of hit.

As I said, the Pentagon is one the most secure facility in America, where's the other cameras?

BTW, those cameras run at 100FPS.

bannerad

Actually the image means shit to me.

You, Neon, do not understand the difference between "claim" and "fact". A plane hitting The Pentagon on 9/11/01 is more a claim than fact. Facts have evidence.

Falstaff

OY! enough is enough, I can say with absolute certainty that parts of people were removed from the wreckage, luggage, aircraft parts, etc were removed, this is just another provocation by a crank that has little or no evidence besides the crabby video, but in fact there exists several photos, and security video of the plane hitting the building, my second ex wife serves there as a chinese linguist and is intimately familiar with the circustances and the evidence. It really happened man, but anyone can choose to believe what they want to believe. Personally I believe in flying saucers and extraterrestrial life because I have seen unidentified objects flying over my head as a boy and as a grown man, and during the gulf war. I find believing that Kerry was a war hero to be more difficult than that. He has had his nose up the Kennedy families ass for years.

__________________

bannerad

I don't disbute there were dead bodies...

Please explain to me, how this plane seemingly defied physics and fit itself into here...


And why (if there are pictures showing a 757 hitting The Pentagon) haven't these pictures been shown?

ToshiroOC

Isn't it possible that the plane hit the ground slightly before hitting the Pentagon, breaking off the wings and making them slide into the ground floor of the Pentagon? The fuselage could do the rest of the damage, but since the wings are much much lighter for the surface area they distribute the force over, they likely wouldn'tve broken the outside wall (and, apparently, didn't). I have little patience for conspiracy theories that refuse to do independent empirical testing of their theories - you wanna prove to me that it wasn't a plane? Go make a structurally similar model of a Pentagon side, a structurally similar scale model of a plane, and then ram the plane model into the model Pentagon and tell me what it looks like.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

cManBlues

As you can see here, the wall of the pentagon collapsed later... in the beginning there was just this small hole in the wall... i can not imagine how a plane (with or without folded back wings) could fit into that. and also all trees and streetlamps are still standing where the are. no one is damaged!



another interesting thing: look at the cnn video of the security cam of the pentagon... it goes from second 19 to second 23... the only thing that is interesting is, that the second where "something" actually hit the pentagon, second 20, is missing! it goes from 19 directly to 21...
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/03/...d.exclude.html

Chris

bannerad

A perfectly plausible possibility, but there's no evidence to support it. If the fuselage hit the ground, where are the marks of its impact and how'd it hit the upper levels of the Pentagon?

The_Neon_Cowboy

not really asume the wings simply folded back... make a paper plane some time.... Also I've seen a simular dawings but a diffrent angles from the center and from the left make up your mind people lol

Also remember the "pull" of the plane.. what pulls the plane through the air the massive engines.. when the plane stopped the engines shurely kept going fo a few moment wich would and could of done verry odd things with the wings them selfs

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

useing the same diagram and eacxt scale




Now rember a wings greatest strigth is in the frount that also wer the most supprt is... so the metal is thicker and stronger asuming the wing hits something and doesn't sheer off or detach it will fold back...


Of of the wings sheered the could have easily been pulled into the main hole by the massiv engines

__________________

bannerad

The image origianlly posted by me shows how the Government claims the plane hit the Pentagon. You can change the plane to go in anyway you like, but it would contrdict the Governmants claims.

And I hope you're not suggesting the engines, which are attached to the wings, sucked the wings in to them. The wings are several times as big as the engines and even if this supposedly did happen, why hasn't the Government clearified this all for us?

We all saw what happened at the WTC, your theory is inconsistant.

ToshiroOC

I see little evidence proving the idea that the 757 didn't hit, but something else did too. The comment that the Pentagon claims the plane telescoped in isn't a totally invalid one, either. I don't have exact measurements of anything, and don't have a degree that qualifies me to speculate about structural damage or anything else, so I won't presume to know better than the experts what happened.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Falstaff

just some real hard info and pics, no bullshit

yes even more to come

oh yes, even more

whether anyone chooses to believe it or not, wreckage from the plane was recovered from the interior of the building consistent with a 757 and subsequent analysis of the damage is consistent with a plane impact. The analysis of the tower impacts also were extensive and thorough and the planes were obliterated within the the tower itself and it still stood long enough to be photographed to Ad Nauseum.

__________________

amduser

something hit the pentagon. fact . airliners hit the twin towers. fact. osama claimed responsiblity and was proud of it. fact. what is the point? are we suggesting these events are figment of our imagination or some concocted image/video thing to decieve us all?

Dom

Well, I believe the point being made is (as others have said in this thread) there's no solid evidence a 757 (I believe that was the type hijacked) hit the Pentagon. There is, however, evidence that contradicts this suggestion. The images don't show a plane and there are videos that supposedly show one hitting it but haven't been released. The obvious question one would ask is why?

Take a look at this (requires Flash plugin) to get an idea of why people are questioning the US Government's claims.

amduser

i am sorry. i haven't been following any conspiracy stories about 9/11. i just came across this one. it justs seems to me there is no reason to lie about an airliner hitting the pentagon. if it were a missile or something else would it matter? unless it was something profound that would change the whole meaning of the attack why go on like this? it appears there was tremendous destruction at the site and it never occured to me to look for wreckage. it did look like something plowed into the building.