World trade center video

[Rat Faced]

There are other questions though..

Why aim for a virtually vacant section of the building undergoing refurbishment, meaning you have to virtually double back in the direction the plane was going (I think they had to turn 270 Degrees or something like that). If they'd just crashed in the original direction there would have been 1000's of fatalities, possibly including Rumsfeld...

How can you be so accurate as to get a bullseye on the only occupied part of that vacant section... virtually wiping out Naval Intelligence. (Maybe they just REALLY hated the Navy? )

Why suppress the video footage of the crash taken by business in the area, and only release a few stills?


Its almost like they wanted to fuel the stupid conspiracy theory re: it wasnt a plane.. Go Figure..

[neon]

But fuck the mass media it’s lame like leprosy// it’s faker then a fame seeking celebrity// just turn the news off it’s just bs Government propaganda complicity// here’s one thing they don’t talk about, it was covered up instantly// it’s not given any air-time although the government say “it’s collapse is a mystery”// Cus it was hit by no plane// but at 5:20pm still fell all the same// 6.5 seconds straight down playing gravity, like it's a game// the 47 story collapse of WTC 7 is the name// to this lil rhyme that’s got no ticket to fame// cus the mass media has been locked down all the same// by the Bush-government who can not take the blame// cus that would be un-patriotic for a county that’s vain// despite the fact that the building had a CIA domain// with bullet proof windows on two floors// internal air and water supply, Iris scan doors// a sophisticated building with really no engineering flaws//
(WTC7)
[color=blue]The truth is 9/11 was a messy inside job, they fucked up at every stage// like the wrong house busted in a police drug raid// with clues literally littered everywhere like a ticker-tape parade// but the propaganda so skilfully conducted using the power the media has to persuade// switching the peoples attention to fanatical Islamists like a mixer cross-fade!

Yeah you know what's up man.

It WAS a staged event. The evidence is all there
and the government STILL hasent gove a Offical/true explanation for the events.

You need to be skooled if you think otherwise, you need to tape ya mouth shut if your following the lies. get the fuck outta here.. you played

[neon]

Very comprehensive, impartial site here, if anyone is still interested...

http://911research.com/

http://www.reopen911.org/
^^ another site.

[lynx]

To claim a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon is utter crap, People saw it, bits of it were found, if it didn't crash, where the fuck is it? Also, this is no ordinary building, this is the Pentagon. Aeroplanes are very weak, if they were built to be any stronger they wouldn't fly, ask anyone who has ever sat by a window and watched the wings flex and move about. Crashing into the Pentagon at that speed would, and did, leave a very small hole, around 15 feet across, the size of the fuselage.

For those who believe no bits of aircraft were found, you're wrong, they found heaps, have a look here, for example >> Bits of the 757

Conspiracy theories are good for a laugh, and that's what most of them are, laughable, especially this one.

I should begin by pointing out that the link you referred to itself continually refers to the work done by Perdue University. I'm sure some of it is very valid in building design, but when you examine the credentials of those involved not one has any acknowledged experience of high speed impacts. Their aim was to produce an animation of what they believed might have happened, and for them (abovetopsecret) to subsequently produce this as evidence of what actually happened is disgraceful.

Actually, it left a hole 75 feet across in the outer wall. The smaller hole was in Ring C, in other words after going through the outer and inner walls of the Ring E and Ring D at the very least, I don't think anyone would seriously expect that the full aircraft would get so far. But if you want to knock down a theory, what better way than to misrepresent it?

You are wrong about aircraft being weak, the wings are designed to flex, it is part of what gives the aircraft it's stability in turbulent air. If the wings were so weak as you claim, how could they able to support the full weight of the aircraft, at maximum takeoff weight 123.6 tonnes (not the out of date 115.7 tonnes stated in your link)? By comparison, it is the fuselage which is relatively weak, yet this is supposedly the part which has punched through the walls but left the wings behind.

The guy who wrote that report (Mete Sozen) assumed that metal will bend, just as it does in an automobile accident. But at the speeds involved there's one slight problem with that assumption. The metal simply does not have time to bend. But that's what you get when you ask an expert on static structures to explain the effect of a high speed impact. Unless of course you want the wrong conclusion to be drawn.

At best the wing will shear off. And if it shears off then there is nothing to draw it into the hole made by the fuselage, instead it will keep going in a straight line and therefore must either make its own hole or be left outside. There is no evidence it did either, so the correct assumption is that either it wasn't a 757, or that part or all of the wing was absent at the time of impact.

Another point, the aircraft fuel is held in the wings. What happened to 25 tonnes of jet fuel? If the wings were left outside there would have been a massive fireball visible over a great distance, but no-one reported any such thing. If the wings were drawn into the Pentagon the fire inside would have massively more intense and there would have been a lot more casualties.

Now I'm not saying that it wasn't a 757, I'm suggesting it wasn't a complete 757. The missing frames on the Pentagon video have been held up as "evidence" that there is a cover up, and that the plane wasn't a 757. But it could just as easily be that they are hiding damage on the 757. If they were avoiding jet fighters it could also explain why they missed the Pentagon and had to "go around".

[JPaul]

You need to be skooled if you think otherwise, you need to tape ya mouth shut if your following the lies. get the fuck outta here.. you played

I am pleased to report I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Can someone translate, or is it worth the bother.

[Rat Faced]

You need to be skooled if you think otherwise, you need to tape ya mouth shut if your following the lies. get the fuck outta here.. you played

I am pleased to report I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Can someone translate, or is it worth the bother.

Sorry, dont speak gobbledegook or double dutch

[Everose]

Careful Dave, you seem to be assuming that just because the explanation is rubbish, then the opposite viewpoint must be true, but that's not the case.

If it was a 757 but it had been damaged beforehand that could explain why there was a missing wing and also why the hole was not as large as might be expected. Or course, if it was damaged in such a way that would open the question as to how the damage had occurred, and that might be just as embarrassing to the US government.

Edit: I would add one comment though.
Why would you ask a structural engineer (who by definition deals with static structures) to comment on high speed impacts, a subject totally outside his field of expertise?

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


I guess we all think differently on this. To me a structural engineer can definitely have areas of expertise.

And on the WTC7 building.........I decided against the conspiracy theories when I realized this Larry Silverstein has never owned this building. A 99 year lease from the New York Port Authority by Silverstein Properties, Inc. doesn't constitute ownership to me. And that being the case......what right would he have to even think of demolishing?

As far as his remark about 'pulling and standing back and watching the building demolish?' Firefighters always talk about pulling. In their terms, it means not fighting the fire.....pulling away from.........letting it go...letting the fire do the pulling down.

I guess we all have to go with our own common sense....what makes sense to us.

[GepperRankins]

"pull out" might mean leave the fires to burn. "pull it" doesn't sound right.

i wonder what "the fires were out" and "there was definately a second explosion" mean in firemans speak

[Everose]

Oft times firemen think the fires were out, Gepper. Many times they are called back to a fire after many hours of such thinking. I have seen it happen more than once myself and this could cause another explosion, imo.

[whypikonme]

... not one has any acknowledged experience of high speed impacts. .

Unloke you, of course, who no doubt studied this at uni?

This conspiracy nonsense is a joke, a 757 flew into the Pentagon -- full stop. People saw it, they found the plane, and the black box, and the passengers and crew.

This is schoolboy stuff.