Terrorism (29 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,912
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Conspiracy theory site on 9/11

with an interesting flash movie about the Pentagon attack:

Were the twin towers demolished?

What about building 7?

There's about a million links to a whole bunch of different pages on that site. Now please don't take it personally or shoot me down; I'm not agreeing with the views expressed therein, nor am I trying to alter anyone's views. I just thought it made interesting reading
Damn that first link gave me chills. But I really do not believe that the info given in that video is feasable evidence for their case. It does look suspicious, but I have heard many people's accounts, and they all stated that they watched the 737 fly into the Pentagon.

The Twin Tower demolition one is a farce. There is video of both planes flying into the towers, both of which were broadcasted live here for all to see. The people who made that site also do not know simple laws of physics that pertain to skyscrapers.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,912
++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
TBH, I noticed the same thing about the Pentagon crash. I never did see any plane wrecks there.
A Boeing 757 traveling at cruise speed is basically a missile. If it hits a structure as large as the Pentagon, at that speed, the whole jet would disintegrate in an instant because of the amount of fuel it carries. That is why you do not see much debris outside of the Pentagon.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Conspiracy theory site on 9/11

with an interesting flash movie about the Pentagon attack:

Were the twin towers demolished?

What about building 7?

There's about a million links to a whole bunch of different pages on that site. Now please don't take it personally or shoot me down; I'm not agreeing with the views expressed therein, nor am I trying to alter anyone's views. I just thought it made interesting reading
It's interesting that these people have asked questions about the tragedy. By all means, fine. No harm in that. It's good to see some people try to analyize it on their own and not just take in what they're fed by the media.

Anyhow, having said that. I don't agree with their analysis. There are too many why's and if's involved. I don't think their case holds water, though I do believe that there's a lot more involved in the issue. I don't belive the public knows the whole truth or the most accurate details. So there must be little lies here and there.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,912
What I would like to know is what happend to the flight that crashed a couple counties over from me in Pennsylvania. I keep thinking that they might have shot it down, but for good reason.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
What I would like to know is what happend to the flight that crashed a couple counties over from me in Pennsylvania. I keep thinking that they might have shot it down, but for good reason.
Good question.. Thought in this case, i kinda like it that we don't know the whole truth.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,912
++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++


Good question.. Thought in this case, i kinda like it that we don't know the whole truth.
Yeah maybe its better that way, but still interesting to discuss. A few people in the military or National Guard I know have all hinted that they suspect it was shot down.
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #1,011
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


    A Boeing 757 traveling at cruise speed is basically a missile. If it hits a structure as large as the Pentagon, at that speed, the whole jet would disintegrate in an instant because of the amount of fuel it carries. That is why you do not see much debris outside of the Pentagon.
    A whole 757 to desintigrate and leave absolutely no debris??? I find that hard to believe. There would have to be evidence of it hitting the Pentagon, the wings, engines, something.

    Look at these pictures:








    Those are pictures of the KLM Boing 747 involved in the Tenerife disaster in '77. The plane crashed into another Pan Am Boing 747, and burst into flames. it had completely refueled just two hours earlier. My point is, no matter how fast or how much fuel, a plane cant just dissapear, disintigrate into thin air without leaving at least some debris.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #1,012
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    What I would like to know is what happend to the flight that crashed a couple counties over from me in Pennsylvania. I keep thinking that they might have shot it down, but for good reason.
    Didnt they say that passangers tried to overpower the terrorists, which led to the plane crashing?
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    A plane, though, can seem to dissapear when hitting other debris, i.e. buildings. The plane which hit the Pentagon went straight into the body of the structure, not touching the ground first. The jet would not have stopped there, either, as the main body of the aircraft would have travelled further into the structure, along with other big parts of the craft. Now that 'documentary' does not show pictures further inside of the Pentagon now does it? All they showed was a little hole in the wall futher inside the Pentagon, which was obviously man-made for fire fighters. The makers of the film did not even bother to edit the words "punched out", which were spray painted on the wall next to the hole. That is another falsity of the documentary.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++


    Didnt they say that passangers tried to overpower the terrorists, which led to the plane crashing?
    Yes, which is a believable story. It's just after all these hijacking movies made, people might speculate that the last resort was actually used.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #1,015
    I'm not talking about the documentary. It is simply not possible for a huge passanger plane to hit a building and not leave any evidence of it on the outside. Surely the wings and engines should have been visible, as well as the tail.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,912
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    I'm not talking about the documentary. It is simply not possible for a huge passanger plane to hit a building and not leave any evidence of it on the outside. Surely the wings and engines should have been visible, as well as the tail.
    They might not have been visible outside of the Pentagon if the aircraft had time to travel into the structure itself, which it obviously did. There was plenty of debris outside of the Pentagon, just nothing that noticeble for what we know. Maybe there was?
     

    gray

    Senior Member
    Moderator
    Apr 22, 2003
    30,260
    I'm more concerned about the tiny whole punched into the wall of the Pentagon than the amount of debris... no real explanation for that IMO
     

    Majed

    Senior Member
    Jul 17, 2002
    9,630
    ++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
    I'm more concerned about the tiny whole punched into the wall of the Pentagon than the amount of debris... no real explanation for that IMO
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    A plane, though, can seem to dissapear when hitting other debris, i.e. buildings. The plane which hit the Pentagon went straight into the body of the structure, not touching the ground first. The jet would not have stopped there, either, as the main body of the aircraft would have travelled further into the structure, along with other big parts of the craft. Now that 'documentary' does not show pictures further inside of the Pentagon now does it? All they showed was a little hole in the wall futher inside the Pentagon, which was obviously man-made for fire fighters. The makers of the film did not even bother to edit the words "punched out", which were spray painted on the wall next to the hole. That is another falsity of the documentary.
    ?
     

    gray

    Senior Member
    Moderator
    Apr 22, 2003
    30,260
    sorry M, I'm just skimming the forums atm, so I have to read that post in context to understand the part you highlighted.

    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    A Boeing 757 traveling at cruise speed is basically a missile. If it hits a structure as large as the Pentagon, at that speed, the whole jet would disintegrate in an instant because of the amount of fuel it carries. That is why you do not see much debris outside of the Pentagon.
    I dunno A-man.. the last time I saw tonnes of metal disintegrating in burning jet fuel (which was never), the grass underneath wasn't green and pristine afterwards..
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #1,020
    Like I showed in the KLM pictures, a whole plane cant disintegrate, no matter how much fuel there is on board.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 28)