Scott Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Is this one fake then? I understand that after the walls collapsed it left a large hole but immediately after the impact there was very little. The one part of the plane that should still be there is it's wings, or possibly the tail part of the tail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I'm not sure my description of the pentagon damage in my post above is accurate at all. I might be referring to footage post-collapse. Its difficult to find info on the web that isn't biased towards a conspiracy theory. I do not know enough about the Pentagon or its structure to comment, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty71 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Is this one fake then? http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/early_PentagonC.jpg I understand that after the walls collapsed it left a large hole but immediately after the impact there was very little. The one part of the plane that should still be there is it's wings, or possibly the tail part of the tail. Rense is a good site Scott.... Looking at that Picture how can (in any simple explanation) there be no wings, engines, tail section, fusalage, seats, luggage, bodies. Ahhh everything got sucked into the 14-16ft hole right? Rob......... Im not commenting to convert - From the pic Scott posted what can you see of an aircraft? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Well maybe, the footage of the second plane hitting the WTC shows it just disappearing into the building. But suffice to say, there are pictures of the area strewn with airplane-identifiable wreckage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Rense is a good site Scott.... Looking at that Picture how can (in any simple explanation) there be no wings, engines, tail section, fusalage, seats, luggage, bodies. Ahhh everything got sucked into the 14-16ft hole right? I just googled for a picture, as I said I don't buy into conspiracy theory sites or conspiracy theorists as everyone has their own agenda. I'll stand by what I said originally, something doesn't add up. The big ones being the 3rd building and the pentagon building. Oh, and one I forgot but didn't really dig around into. The plane that the passengers took over and crashed, it was found piece by piece and put back together. It had 2 large gaping holes in either side of the wing that looked a lot like missile hits. Again that could be skewed evidence though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I'm not sure my description of the pentagon damage in my post above is accurate at all. I might be referring to footage post-collapse. Its difficult to find info on the web that isn't biased towards a conspiracy theory. I do not know enough about the Pentagon or its structure to comment, to be honest. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/debrispiles.html There's that about the debris. Again, I'm just throwing out links. I'm not swaying one way or another on this. They claim that the debris claimed to be aircraft orientated was actually building parts. That was MIL released photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty71 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Oh, and one I forgot but didn't really dig around into. The plane that the passengers took over and crashed, it was found piece by piece and put back together. It had 2 large gaping holes in either side of the wing that looked a lot like missile hits. Again that could be skewed evidence though. Straight from the horses mouth Scotty baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty71 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/hullpiece.jpg No burn marks on any of it?? strange. Also the people on the lawn quickly gathering the evidence were breaking federal law in doing so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Straight from the horses mouth Scotty baby What a stunning coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty71 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 What a stunning coincidence. You forget to shut your mouth as you get older Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 In order to believe (b), I have to accept a number of postulates, such as: i) In order to force a war on Iraq/Afghanistan, the US government selected Saudi Arabian hijackers. Given that Saudi-Arabia are cheek-by-jowl with the US, this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Why not choose Iraqi hijackers? ii) The US government would murder thousands of its own civilians. Apart from the colossal risk for the perpetrators, it just does not fit with the American psyche at all. Their talent is for murdering other people's civilians, if I can put it that bluntly. iii) That a very large operation could be carried out secretly. Democratic governments, as Chomsky put it, are leaky at all levels. iv) that a very large number of motivated, patriotic professionals, cooperating in 'the biggest criminal investigation in history' have all been bought off or coerced into toeing the 'official line' about the events. It's so hard to leave this thread alone - even though I get accused of accusing others of being nutjobs for believing youtube and the 'experts' on the internet. I agree I can't actually believe any of those things which is why I find all this so hard to understand. I can't believe that so many people (the ones that were on the 'guided' planes) were in on the plot. That somehow phone calls to loved ones from the planes were 'faked'. That the US Government would kill SO many people on American soil - not just kill them, kill them in the most elaborate way possible to cause maximum damage and destruction. Not only that, they effectively toppled their own economy and the Bush administration with events that happened after 9/11. As we've seen in Libya. They don't need 'reasons' to 'help' other countries, they've been doing such a stirling job of that for years. Why then, did they mastermind the greatest conspiracy ever known to go to war with Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 You forget to shut your mouth as you get older Scott Have you watched the video I posted in this post? Not only does it challenge many of the theories you're putting forward, but it's from a far more credible source than some random Youtube video AND features several people who come across exactly like you are right now. People who believe in this sort of stuff dish out 'open your mind' type comments with abandon, but seem unable to make the same leap themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Looking at that Picture how can (in any simple explanation) there be no wings, engines, tail section, fusalage, seats, luggage, bodies. Ahhh everything got sucked into the 14-16ft hole right? Rob......... Im not commenting to convert - From the pic Scott posted what can you see of an aircraft? Using a simple approach to this, what are your answers to the same questions when you apply it to the twin towers where we saw clear video footage? Did the video show the wings and tail plane simply fall off as it hit the tower? Are you expecting to see a nicely intact set of wings laying on the pentagon lawn? I studied aerostructural engineering at uni and I can say from my knowledge on this that I would expect to see the resultant impact zone as left on the pentagon and the twin towers as shown in the aftermath records. Please youtbue "F4 phantom hitting wall".....this along with other similar tests shows how a flimsy aircraft structure can 'vaporise' when it makes contact with a solid object at high speed. The wings, tail-plane and fin do not carry much mass in terms of strong metal weight structures. At high speed impacts these simply turn into very small metal fragments. The fuel in the wing also turns in to vapour. Actually the only damage I'd expect to see from the wing impact areas on a structure like the pentagon would mainly be from the momentum of the fuel in the wings. But then if somebody were to say they shot 'x' number of gallons of liquid in to the walls of the pentagon over the area of the wings that contained the fuel, would you then say you would expect to see huge holes? Concrete is very strong in compression, reinforced concrete is much stronger. A military building reinforced concrete structure that is designed against RPG attack has reinforcement bars much closer than a civilian building and the structure would easily take the impact of some lightweight aircraft wings, tail-plane, fin and fuel. Even if it is travelling at 500mph. The only part of the impact that would carry enough momentum to puncture through such a structure would be the centre of the fuselage whereby the main concentration of mass it located. The top part of the fuselage is quite flimsy and only needs structural strength to enable it to hold the usual amount of pressure changes on each flight at altitude (and also tension, torsion, compression and extension effects due to turbulence and landings etc.) , but in essence it is lightweight material that would not carry as much impact power as the centre of the fuselage. The centre of the fuselage is where the main floor and core structural strength of an airliner is located. This is the area whereby the following things are mounted and secured in place : seats, landing gear, wing joints, tail plane joints, fin joints, luggage compartment supports etc. etc. This is the area of the plane that carries the energy or impact power (trying to use laymen terms) that would puncture something like the pentagon. The exterior ‘flimsy’ parts of the fuselage would do little damage, so what you’re left with is quite a small area of the plane able to carry through enough energy to puncture the walls. Same thing happened at the twin towers, but the difference here is that the twin towers are not military buildings like the pentagon. The towers had a glass and thin walled office structure on the exterior with a strong inner core that had the reinforced concrete that were the load baring supports of the towers. As the planes went in to these they left the cartoon-like imprint of the wings and fin of the aircraft. You could clearly see the bank angle the plane went in. Also to address the question of why there were no bodies. You hear of aircraft disasters that happen all over the world and then you see the body bags on the news etc. Even planes that break up in the air, you will often see body bags on the clean up. BUT you will not see body bags on any plane crash that hit the ground intact at any high angle of approach. A body can be thought of as a water balloon in comparison to the forces involved in an airplane crash. To be brutally honest on this subject the body will explode in to a complete mess just like a water balloon if you subject it to the impact forces involved in such an air crash. You may find small amounts of bone with the odd bit of flesh still attached but that will be all you’ll find. On many plane crashes, you’ll find they are shallow impacts, such as pilot error on landing, running out of fuel, or any other amount of incidents. On these you will find bodies, as the plane has crashed shallow and the forces have been dissipated over a length of crash zone. You’ll rarely find an intact body of any recognition on a high speed impact whereby the plane buries all its energy (including your own kinetic energy) straight in to the ground or a structure of some sort. When you say “everything got sucked into the 14-16ft hole right” you are more or less correct. That being the hole was created by the part of the plane that carried enough impact power to puncture the building and that the bodies will have ‘exploded’ like a water balloon on entry in to this hole (as the bodies will have been near to the seats mounts which will have been on top of the main weight part of the plane). Describing this in some detail sends a shiver down my back to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandan Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 More like 18 billion is missing to date . 18 billion what Jazz? $$$ of oil? If that's what you mean then it would still have been far cheaper to buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandan Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Using a simple approach to this ...... ..... .....Describing this in some detail sends a shiver down my back to be honest. Good post and FWIW I agree with everything there. I can't see how or why anyone would argue with any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Snip Sorry, I didn't want to quote the whole post. That was a good post and made for interesting reading, I just have a few points to make. In the video of the F4 hitting the concrete you can see that the concrete remains intact and that the plane doesn't cortina, it simply disintegrates as it impacts the wall. The endup is that the wingtips are left due to going past the side of the concrete wall. This would support your theory that the wings hitting a concrete re-enforced building would leave very little in the way of identifiable aeroplane parts. However, the pentagon was punctured all the way through as I understand it. This would mean that something made it all the way through to the other side. As the demonstration video the plane doesn't cortina so would it not be more likely that most of the surviving fuselage would be past the hole. Using the F4 as an example, if it had actually managed to puncture a hole in that concrete, say by the halfway mark of the main body, the latter part of the plane and the tail wouldn't be hitting concrete, it would be torn and broken and in bits but it would pass through the hole due to there being nothing in the way to stop it. Obviously this is just an observation, but I don't see how something can create a hole all the way to the other side without any of it actually making it through. Just to add, the hole that was left on the other side was perfectly round, this would say to me that the fuselage was in fact intact enough to create that hole and therefor there should definitely be a lot of debris on the other side. If it was simply the impact that knocked the hole out then it wouldn't be such a tidy shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Obviously this is just an observation, but I don't see how something can create a hole all the way to the other side without any of it actually making it through. Just to add, the hole that was left on the other side was perfectly round, this would say to me that the fuselage was in fact intact enough to create that hole and therefor there should definitely be a lot of debris on the other side. If it was simply the impact that knocked the hole out then it wouldn't be such a tidy shape. There's a graphical illustration about it in the VIDEO I POSTED. Scott, you've written thousands of words about this in this thread - if you're that interested then watch the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazz1 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 18 billion what Jazz? $$$ of oil? If that's what you mean then it would still have been far cheaper to buy it. You mean steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Obviously this is just an observation, but I don't see how something can create a hole all the way to the other side without any of it actually making it through. Just to add, the hole that was left on the other side was perfectly round, this would say to me that the fuselage was in fact intact enough to create that hole and therefor there should definitely be a lot of debris on the other side. If it was simply the impact that knocked the hole out then it wouldn't be such a tidy shape. Hang on...last night you and Scotty were saying there was no hole - and there were no pictures of any holes, just of the collaspes wall of the building. What's this 'round hole' picture? I understand that after the walls collapsed it left a large hole but immediately after the impact there was very little. The one part of the plane that should still be there is it's wings, or possibly the tail part of the tail. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 You mean steal. Erm... no he doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Hang on...last night you and Scotty were saying there was no hole - and there were no pictures of any holes, just of the collaspes wall of the building. What's this 'round hole' picture? No I didn't, I said the hole was really small to begin with (post collapse). I even posted a picture of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 No I didn't, I said the hole was really small to begin with (post collapse). I even posted a picture of it How is the size of the hole relevant if it is 'post collapse'? (I'm not having a go - just trying to understand). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 There's a graphical illustration about it in the VIDEO I POSTED. Scott, you've written thousands of words about this in this thread - if you're that interested then watch the video I just watched that part of it. I'm cynical by nature so I'm not going to take a guys word on it. A couple of things I spotted... 1. According to the graphical illustration the wings crashed into the building. - The photos tell a different story. 2. The explosion of fuel caused the hole. - That was brushed off far too quickly for my liking. The shape of the hole still doesn't add up for me. Why aren't there loads of them from the multiple explosions that were described? The video doesn't prove anything for me Gaz. I watched almost half of it and I'm still only seeing peoples opinions. Experts in either field disagreeing with each other. The FBI have footage of the pentagon getting hit, clear footage... not the crap that they released. They also have pictures of the apparent wreckage. I can't see any conceivable reason to withold any of that information unless it was to the contrary of the story given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 How is the size of the hole relevant if it is 'post collapse'? (I'm not having a go - just trying to understand). Sorry, pre collapse. I was thinking of what was said after I posted it lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.