|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 16, 2006 14:15:55 GMT -4
When I was in the Navy, I saw the result of an F-14 that had crashed while "hot-doging" over the ocean. At the speeds that the airplane was traveling, the whole jet had seemed to shatter at the moment that the nose had touched the ocean.
I think people are not accustomed to witnessing the physics of objects traveling so fast. I do not think that it is impossible for a jet to hit the pentagon and yet cause a smaller hole than the jet itself.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 16, 2006 20:45:07 GMT -4
yet cause a smaller hole than the jet itself.
Well the hole is only smaller if you include the full wings and tail, all structures that are weak and even at speed would shatter relatively harmlessly against the reinforced concrete and marble shell. The main hole was slightly bigger then the cylinder of a 757 and the damage extents out to around half the length og the wings on each side.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on May 22, 2006 23:08:44 GMT -4
Speed doesn't explain how two wings with jet engines vaporized into nothing. The wings, tail and engines didn't enter the building, yet there was no sign of their debris in any of the photos. The official explanation is that they vaporized from the explosion, but that is ridiculously unscientific. The available evidence is more consistent with a cruise missile attack. See Loose Change for a more detailed explanation of this.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 22, 2006 23:36:27 GMT -4
Speed doesn't explain how two wings with jet engines vaporized into nothing. Who says that? What about the photos on this page: www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html?Ah, what about the plane parts found all over the ground?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2006 2:44:09 GMT -4
Speed doesn't explain how two wings with jet engines vaporized into nothing.
Who says they did?
The wings, tail and engines didn't enter the building
The eyewittnesses and location of the engine parts claim that they did. Wittiness say the main part of the wing folded back and followed the plane into the building. The position of the debris agrees.
The official explanation is that they vaporized from the explosion, but that is ridiculously unscientific.
No its not. It is the weaker parts of the tail and wings shattered on contact with the wall and are the many parts of shreded metal lying about the area, the more major parts folded back and entered the pentagon with the rest of the plane.
The available evidence is more consistent with a cruise missile attack.
A cruise missile doesn't explain the knocked down light poles the witness acounts the 757 parts inside the impact area, the wreakage outside the impact area, the black boxes in the rubble, the radar tracking of AA77 to the Pentagon, the body parts of the passangers inside the ruins, the size of the explosion, the damage to the generator and fence or the shape and size of the damage to the interior of the Pentagon. So I guess if you just totally ignore all that terribly inconvinient evidence, a cruise missile might work.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 23, 2006 7:52:46 GMT -4
A cruise missile doesn't explain the knocked down light poles the witness acounts the 757 parts inside the impact area, the wreakage outside the impact area, the black boxes in the rubble, the radar tracking of AA77 to the Pentagon, the body parts of the passangers inside the ruins, the size of the explosion, the damage to the generator and fence or the shape and size of the damage to the interior of the Pentagon. So I guess if you just totally ignore all that terribly inconvinient evidence, a cruise missile might work. Even worse, if one believes it was a cruise missile despite this evidence, and chooses not to ignore it, then it means he believes the evidence was either planted or the eye witnesses who reported seeing these things are lying (i.e. "in on the plot"). That's where the whole thing gets silly to me. All this work, evidence planting, witness tampering, etc just so they can claim an airliner hit the Pentagon instead of a missile.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 23, 2006 7:54:40 GMT -4
The available evidence is more consistent with a cruise missile attack.
Totally untrue. The available evidence is more consistent with an airliner. In order to believe a cruise missile hit the building, the good amount of contrary evidence must either be ignored or claimed to be manufactured.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2006 8:43:39 GMT -4
In order to believe a cruise missile hit the building, the good amount of contrary evidence must either be ignored or claimed to be manufactured.This is exactly my point.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 23, 2006 9:50:12 GMT -4
The eyewittnesses and location of the engine parts claim that they did. Wittiness say the main part of the wing folded back and followed the plane into the building. The position of the debris agrees.
We also have video of wings going into a building when the second plane hit the WTC. The hole created by that collision was not as large as the wingspan of that plane but there is no doubt the plane went in. Nor was the WTC as well fortified, so the wings should have been able to make a further penetration before folding back.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 23, 2006 10:53:26 GMT -4
I've heard some say that the Pentagon had to have been hit by a bunker buster type of missle (even though its a bomb) for it to penetrate through the walls that it did. The problem with that is the explosion would have occured much further into the building instead of near the edge as everybody saw. The explosion at the edge of the building and the penetration by heavy part such as landing gear and engines fits the jet crash much more than a missle.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on May 23, 2006 23:34:53 GMT -4
"[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall.
The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."
-Russ Wittenburg, commercial and Air Force pilot who flew two of the planes used on 9-11 (WingTV) "The speed, maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought...all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that it was a military plane."
-Daniel O'Brien, ATC at Dulles International Airport (ABC News) Also: The eyewitness accounts of the pentagon hit are mostly inconsistent: some saw a commercial jet, some a small private jet, another saw a helicopter. The fireball was too light-colored (white not yellow) to be from a jet fuel explosion. Many people reported smelling cordite in the air following the attack. According to the official report, the plane bounced off the ground before hitting the pentagon, yet the grass was clearly unscathed. The windows to the left of the hole where the wings would have hit were completely intact. The cable spools directly in front of the hole were untouched. ( Loose Change) Quite impossible had a Boeing 757 hit the building. Again, I suggest an open-minded viewing of Loose Change. They raise a lot of interesting questions.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 24, 2006 3:02:59 GMT -4
"The speed, maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought...all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that it was a military plane."
Also indicitive of a pilot who had trouble controlling the plane and over corrected a lot.
The eyewitness accounts of the pentagon hit are mostly inconsistent:
Eyewitness testimony generally is and that';s a good sign. If they were all telling exactly the same story I'd be really worried. The mjority of the testimony is consistant in the major points.
According to the official report, the plane bounced off the ground before hitting the pentagon, yet the grass was clearly unscathed.
No, according to several witnesses they thought it hit the lawn first. The Official report sates that it hit the building without hitting the ground.
The windows to the left of the hole where the wings would have hit were completely intact
The Pentagon windows are armoured glass over a foot thick.
The cable spools directly in front of the hole were untouched. Quite impossible had a Boeing 757 hit the building.
Not of it didn't hit the cables themselves.
I suggest an open-mind
Open minds are all well and good, until your brain falls out.
Are you planning to acknowledge the previous rebuttal of your changes, or are you just going to ignore them?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 24, 2006 3:05:43 GMT -4
BTW, I'll note this again here. Today a message from OBL was posted to the net in which he rails against the US holding innocent muslimms over 9/11 and he calls Massoui a fraud who had nothing to do with the operation, that it was just the 19 people he sent to do it. I guess those with "open minds" will all either ignore this or claim it has been faked though and just carry on their merry way.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 24, 2006 3:23:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on May 24, 2006 3:33:01 GMT -4
I was just wondering If the passengers and crew on flight 77 had families or friends. The big problem for this conspiracy is that it ignores the victims or it tries to imply that the passengers were secret agents or something, I don't get it, I tried, I watched the video and everything. Maybe you can help me out here, What role did the passengers play on flight 77? Victims or Conspirators.
|
|