Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 On a footnote., the 911 planes had enough fuel onboard,and were going so fast with so much weight that an impact like that would turn the planes into bombs., even a heavily armoured tank carrying that much weight and fuel would more than likely be atomised., so i cant see any plane surviving that except for parts like wheel structures maybe.,and bits of wiring and parts nearer the back of the planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Hmmm. interesting. I agree that its a bit strange that such a huge plane would punch such neat holes through the buildings. honest this is very easy to explain - youve seen how clean a hole a bullet can make ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 ill tell you a more interesting conspiracy, the one claiming Columbia was brought down by mega lightning., i had a video clip showng it once, but cant find it now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 honest this is very easy to explain - youve seen how clean a hole a bullet can make ? How could the plane haved punched the back wall of the pentagon out? and why was there no debris from a plane near it? after all the plane can't have vapourised completely for it to punch through the (steel reinforced) walls. Walls which had recently been worked on so that they could hold up better in an impact such as a plane hitting it. (the only section of the pentagon that had) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 Columbia... is that the one where the 'o' rings failed? Or was the the one where the heat shield was damaged and broke up on re-entry? I think those disasters have had the cause factor proven without doubt. The biggest conspiracy still going is the moon landings... have they or haven't they... there seems to still be just as much evidence 'for' as there is 'against'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 jim supra- there would have been a pressure wall of air infront of the crashing plane as it was turning into debris. A pressure wall of air can easily break a nice neat hole in a wall if its concentrated enough. The hollow nature of a pressurised plane fuselage along with the wall of air that is infront of any high speed object would have easily caused an impacting force of air that could travel through a wall IMO. Hence no real amount of debris around that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Columbia... is that the one where the 'o' rings failed? Or was the the one where the heat shield was damaged and broke up on re-entry? I think those disasters have had the cause factor proven without doubt. The biggest conspiracy still going is the moon landings... have they or haven't they... there seems to still be just as much evidence 'for' as there is 'against'. columbia was the one with the failed heat shields, basically there was/is video footage showing an object like a ball of light an what looks like a controlled trajectory hitting columbia before it breaks up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 jim supra- there would have been a pressure wall of air infront of the crashing plane as it was turning into debris. A pressure wall of air can easily break a nice neat hole in a wall if its concentrated enough. The hollow nature of a pressurised plane fuselage along with the wall of air that is infront of any high speed object would have easily caused an impacting force of air that could travel through a wall IMO. Hence no real amount of debris around that area. thats exactly what i was going to say Ajc almost like the spud canon effect . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Agreed, such damge can happen, but see the picture below. could a plane really do this sort of damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Trust the USA govt? lol..........never! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 a better picture of the damage on the back wall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ads Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Just finished watching that loose change film, very interesting no way in hell that a big plane hit the pentagon, but i do think it was the two planes that brought down the WTC. But what are they saying happened if it wasnt a plane that hit the pentagon? and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Jim in the pics you show that looks like pressure damage from the immense explosion, im sure there are world war 2 pics showing similar damage to german bunkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_supra Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Jim in the pics you show that looks like pressure damage from the immense explosion, im sure there are world war 2 pics showing similar damage to german bunkers. I'm sorry, what i'm getting at is I don't beleive a plane hit the pentagon, something hit it which did cause a massive explosion, but definitely not a plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I'm sorry, what i'm getting at is I don't beleive a plane hit the pentagon, something hit it which did cause a massive explosion, but definitely not a plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 amazing how the 2 incidents you mention are completely unrelated to 911,. Amazing isnt it..... Duh... One aircraft falls from space and hits the earth, yet they find loads of debris.... the other blows up and falls to the surface and again loads of debris... TBH - havent come across a single crash incident where there was so less debris......other than the "flight" that crashed into the pentagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 why not definitely a plane? I know the CCTV footage is not at a resolution or frame rate to give a definite answer but what factual reasons are there to say it wasn't a plane? It would need something big enough that carries enough momentum to be able to punch through that many walls of the pentagon. A missile would only make it through the first wall at the most. A bomb placed inside the pentagon would not create the damage shown due to where the debris is directed. And the amount of fire damage suggests that there was a lot of fuel. It all points to a large plane, even if we don't have the vid evidence to support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ads Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 it might have been a plane but definatly not a big plane. The hole in the wall is quoted to be 16ft across, doubt a boeing 747 wud do that little damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I'm sorry, what i'm getting at is I don't beleive a plane hit the pentagon, something hit it which did cause a massive explosion, but definitely not a plane. well a lot of people just believe it was a missile., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 it might have been a plane but definatly not a big plane. The hole in the wall is quoted to be 16ft across, doubt a boeing 747 wud do that little damage the pentagon is designed to survive bomb blasts, with a building like that even after a nuke going of some of the building would still be ok (maybe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 why not definitely a plane? I know the CCTV footage is not at a resolution or frame rate to give a definite answer but what factual reasons are there to say it wasn't a plane? It would need something big enough that carries enough momentum to be able to punch through that many walls of the pentagon. A missile would only make it through the first wall at the most. A bomb placed inside the pentagon would not create the damage shown due to where the debris is directed. And the amount of fire damage suggests that there was a lot of fuel. It all points to a large plane, even if we don't have the vid evidence to support it. im with you on this ajc, personaly ive no doubt it was a plane,the remnants of the pentagon crash is very much like the EL AL 1862 crash in 1992. http://www.vialls.com/pentagon/pentagon.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ads Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 the pentagon is designed to survive bomb blasts, with a building like that even after a nuke going of some of the building would still be ok (maybe) deffo, but if a 747 did hit that spot where the hole is then where are the wings??? no damage to the wall around it the windows are still intact!! not to mention the huge engines! where are they??? either a small plane or missile definatly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 deffo, but if a 747 did hit that spot where the hole is then where are the wings??? no damage to the wall around it the windows are still intact!! not to mention the huge engines! where are they??? either a small plane or missile definatly. read this adam, honest : http://www.vialls.com/pentagon/pentagon.html your questions answered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ads Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 will do but u watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 fast forwars to 12.48 and watch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 honest this is very easy to explain - youve seen how clean a hole a bullet can make ? But that's in soft material surely, where the bullet is harder than the object it is striking..... You can't have it both ways, i.e. there was no debris because the plane broke into little pieces and then say those little pieces caused a perfectly round hole.... 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.