One for the conspiracy theorists
07 September 2004, 01:00 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
im just waiting for some retarded SN'er with an old chopper, a home made catapult and a digicamera to start posting some results!
07 September 2004, 01:23 PM
#32
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
main thing to note is that all the stuff thats anti US gov makes it sound like the jet crashed into a 3 bed detached!
the plane is a lightweight sheet of metal/hollow tube.....it flys after all!! cant be that heavy!
the pentagon is one of the USA's largest office blocks with massive weight and strength...read up on the structure of the outerwalls......its not like the WTC which was pretty flimsy in comparison.
a more relastic scale is to catapult a bmx into your garden wall at 350mph with a load of petrol.....then go find bits of BMX!
main thing to note is that all the stuff thats anti US gov makes it sound like the jet crashed into a 3 bed detached!
the plane is a lightweight sheet of metal/hollow tube.....it flys after all!! cant be that heavy!
the pentagon is one of the USA's largest office blocks with massive weight and strength...read up on the structure of the outerwalls......its not like the WTC which was pretty flimsy in comparison.
a more relastic scale is to catapult a bmx into your garden wall at 350mph with a load of petrol.....then go find bits of BMX!
Geezer
07 September 2004, 01:28 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: By the sea (in Essex)
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good evidence for and against the conspiracy. No one can deny hat it was great timing for the Bush administration though!! An invisible enemy that they can fight in whichever country they choose and we all believe their reasons are just. Still too much underhand dealing within the most powerful nation on earth for my liking though.
07 September 2004, 01:34 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from another site:
Inside The Pentagon
Exclusive Photos & Story
The recent Pentagon crash discussion on Rense.com has almost entirely focused on photos of plane debris on the lawn. Since most of the plane reportedly entered the building, we should also look for images of debris inside the building.
Unfortunately, such images are very hard to come by since: (1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building, (3) Most other photos remain in the private hands of investigators, rescue workers, and others who were inside the building.
Many images are officially classified. The following article attempts to bring together all known images sent to me or in the public domain that show aircraft debris inside the Pentagon
First, we shall examine witness accounts of plane debris inside the Pentagon. These were given by recovery workers, firefighters, engineers, and Pentagon officials. Their statements help in interpreting the various photos taken inside the building.
I. Witness Accounts of Wreckage Inside the Building
Witnesses described small pieces of plane debris in the building. Because of the fire, much of the debris was burned beyond recognition. Some pieces bore lime or yellow primer paint characteristic of internal aircraft parts. Larger pieces included seats, cockpit circuitry, and a landing gear. These accounts were drawn from Ron Harvey's excellent compilation and from my own research.
1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
2) "DC Matthew" wrote about his work inside the Pentagon: "After about 15 minutes shoveling up chunks of carpet and brick, I found a piece of circuit board, and a chunk of the plane. When I say a chunk of it, I mean a piece that was about 3 oz of twisted aluminum. The biggest piece I've seen so far is about the size of a refrigerator."
3) While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.
4) CMSgt. John Monaccio wrote: "I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area."
5) ARFF Captain Michael Defina said: "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear."
The Navy operations area, where the cockpit was discovered, was in C-ring near the punchout hole. Many witnesses also recalled seeing plane wreckage in A-E Drive next to the punchout hole. The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread.
6) Navy Lt. Commander David Tarantino described the A-E Drive punchout hole: "They found an area where fire surrounded a hole in a wall that was blown out. They heard cries from people who were trapped and saw a plane tire."
7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
Cool "The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
9) "I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general, quoted by Dean Murphy, "September 11: An Oral History," p. 216
10) Rep. Ted Tiahrt wrote: "In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."
11) When LTC Victor Correa went back inside the Pentagon, "he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner."
II. Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Building
Because of the destructive fire that raged inside the building, most photos show only charred heaps of scrap. A good place to look for plane wreckage is around structural columns which tore the plane into pieces as it entered. Many columns show shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped around them or stacked beside them. The following photo (by MDW Engineer Co. Fort Belvoir photographers) shows such a column in D-ring near column 3H:
Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted small lime-green pieces of aircraft interior.
Resting next to another pillar is another section of lime-green material bearing clear rivet lines (photographed by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino):
Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane. Hanging from the ceiling is a sheet of aluminum:
Another photo of this hanging sheet of aluminum shows a round circular metal part which does not appear to be normal building debris (photographed by VATF-1 workers):
This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain. Note the torn column nettings on the right. On the left is an obvious piece of yellow-primed aircraft fuselage bearing rivet holes and a twisted silver metal piece next to it.
Now we are moving to the C-ring punchout hole. The following photo taken on 9/13 or 9/14 gives a unique view of the hole from the inside, unfortunately after most of the debris was hauled away:
However the following photo shows a landing gear found inside C-ring near the punchout hole. Note how completely charred the rest of the debris was.
As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. A similar ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose (with an attaching piece), just below the cockpit windows -- but it is far from clear whether the configuration is a match. This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone" referred to by Lt. Kevin Shaeffer and Victor Correa.
In the heap of debris next to the hole lies an airliner wheel hub from one of the landing gears (as shown on TLC's "Pentagon Under Fire," aired 9/11/02):
Compare the following closeup of a 757 landing gear:
The following photo, which ironically enough graced the cover of T. Meyssan's "Pentagate" book, shows both the fuselage fragment and the wheel hub:
Finally, further down the debris heap, one can find the tire tread that belonged to the wheel hub. I've indicated it in the following video still recorded in A-E Drive:
Another image of the tire tread, published in Paris Match and posted on the web by AmigaPhil, shows its groove markings more clearly. I've compared it with a landing gear recovered at the WTC, and the grooves appear to match:
III. Conclusion
Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.
Inside The Pentagon
Exclusive Photos & Story
The recent Pentagon crash discussion on Rense.com has almost entirely focused on photos of plane debris on the lawn. Since most of the plane reportedly entered the building, we should also look for images of debris inside the building.
Unfortunately, such images are very hard to come by since: (1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building, (3) Most other photos remain in the private hands of investigators, rescue workers, and others who were inside the building.
Many images are officially classified. The following article attempts to bring together all known images sent to me or in the public domain that show aircraft debris inside the Pentagon
First, we shall examine witness accounts of plane debris inside the Pentagon. These were given by recovery workers, firefighters, engineers, and Pentagon officials. Their statements help in interpreting the various photos taken inside the building.
I. Witness Accounts of Wreckage Inside the Building
Witnesses described small pieces of plane debris in the building. Because of the fire, much of the debris was burned beyond recognition. Some pieces bore lime or yellow primer paint characteristic of internal aircraft parts. Larger pieces included seats, cockpit circuitry, and a landing gear. These accounts were drawn from Ron Harvey's excellent compilation and from my own research.
1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
2) "DC Matthew" wrote about his work inside the Pentagon: "After about 15 minutes shoveling up chunks of carpet and brick, I found a piece of circuit board, and a chunk of the plane. When I say a chunk of it, I mean a piece that was about 3 oz of twisted aluminum. The biggest piece I've seen so far is about the size of a refrigerator."
3) While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.
4) CMSgt. John Monaccio wrote: "I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area."
5) ARFF Captain Michael Defina said: "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear."
The Navy operations area, where the cockpit was discovered, was in C-ring near the punchout hole. Many witnesses also recalled seeing plane wreckage in A-E Drive next to the punchout hole. The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread.
6) Navy Lt. Commander David Tarantino described the A-E Drive punchout hole: "They found an area where fire surrounded a hole in a wall that was blown out. They heard cries from people who were trapped and saw a plane tire."
7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
Cool "The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
9) "I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general, quoted by Dean Murphy, "September 11: An Oral History," p. 216
10) Rep. Ted Tiahrt wrote: "In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."
11) When LTC Victor Correa went back inside the Pentagon, "he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner."
II. Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Building
Because of the destructive fire that raged inside the building, most photos show only charred heaps of scrap. A good place to look for plane wreckage is around structural columns which tore the plane into pieces as it entered. Many columns show shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped around them or stacked beside them. The following photo (by MDW Engineer Co. Fort Belvoir photographers) shows such a column in D-ring near column 3H:
Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted small lime-green pieces of aircraft interior.
Resting next to another pillar is another section of lime-green material bearing clear rivet lines (photographed by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino):
Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane. Hanging from the ceiling is a sheet of aluminum:
Another photo of this hanging sheet of aluminum shows a round circular metal part which does not appear to be normal building debris (photographed by VATF-1 workers):
This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers. The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain. Note the torn column nettings on the right. On the left is an obvious piece of yellow-primed aircraft fuselage bearing rivet holes and a twisted silver metal piece next to it.
Now we are moving to the C-ring punchout hole. The following photo taken on 9/13 or 9/14 gives a unique view of the hole from the inside, unfortunately after most of the debris was hauled away:
However the following photo shows a landing gear found inside C-ring near the punchout hole. Note how completely charred the rest of the debris was.
As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. A similar ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose (with an attaching piece), just below the cockpit windows -- but it is far from clear whether the configuration is a match. This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone" referred to by Lt. Kevin Shaeffer and Victor Correa.
In the heap of debris next to the hole lies an airliner wheel hub from one of the landing gears (as shown on TLC's "Pentagon Under Fire," aired 9/11/02):
Compare the following closeup of a 757 landing gear:
The following photo, which ironically enough graced the cover of T. Meyssan's "Pentagate" book, shows both the fuselage fragment and the wheel hub:
Finally, further down the debris heap, one can find the tire tread that belonged to the wheel hub. I've indicated it in the following video still recorded in A-E Drive:
Another image of the tire tread, published in Paris Match and posted on the web by AmigaPhil, shows its groove markings more clearly. I've compared it with a landing gear recovered at the WTC, and the grooves appear to match:
III. Conclusion
Despite the destructive fire that raged inside the impact area on 9/11, pieces of debris were visible on 9/13 and 9/14, and were photographed by recovery workers. These photos clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside -- indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th.
07 September 2004, 01:49 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bloke
100 tons not that heavy??
to quote LL Cool J:
place your hands on a hot pan for a second and it seems like an hour, place your hands on a hot woman for an hour and it seems like a second
07 September 2004, 01:52 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This photo of engine remains was taken in either D or C-ring by VATF-1 workers
Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.
Good arguments for and against a 757 hitting it overall, but still inconsistent on both sides, as usual.
Geezer
07 September 2004, 02:05 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jason Crozier
Was the question as to missing plane id and crew / passenger manifest addressed ?
all but one of the bodies have been id'd from teeth and tissue remains so not sure how the US gov "planted" bits of humans in the pentagon rubble after they shot it with a missile!
07 September 2004, 02:19 PM
#41
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plane that hit the Pentagon was doing 250mph, take off the speed for hitting the ground and you are left with something that is unlikely to penetrate a building that is not only historically strong, but had just received millions of dollars of strengthening at that very point. Well, it would penetrate it of course, but to get as far as it did?
Again, I do not particularly believe that the US govt made all this up, but alot of the things are contradictory.
I don't doubt that it would be difficult to see any wreckage as planes are relativley flimsy things. Look at pictures of amy crash site and it looks like scrapheap challeng. Mix that with a collapsed building and you won't be able to tell what's what.
It's only the actual impact itself which seems odd to me, and then only odd, not impossible.
Geezer
Again, I do not particularly believe that the US govt made all this up, but alot of the things are contradictory.
I don't doubt that it would be difficult to see any wreckage as planes are relativley flimsy things. Look at pictures of amy crash site and it looks like scrapheap challeng. Mix that with a collapsed building and you won't be able to tell what's what.
It's only the actual impact itself which seems odd to me, and then only odd, not impossible.
Geezer
07 September 2004, 02:22 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so a 100 ton plane wont get that far? so what would? what missle could do that damage?
ppl seem to expect a cartoon styllllle plane shape on the outside wall like tom and jerry!
ppl seem to expect a cartoon styllllle plane shape on the outside wall like tom and jerry!
07 September 2004, 02:28 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
so a 100 ton plane wont get that far? so what would? what missle could do that damage?
07 September 2004, 02:28 PM
#45
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL That is a funny image in my mind.
Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
That is a funny image in my mind.Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
07 September 2004, 02:31 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geezer
LOL That is a funny image in my mind.
Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
That is a funny image in my mind.Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
07 September 2004, 02:33 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of the planes would have been doing 500mph, that's the sort of speed they'd be doing when cruising at altitude. From the video of the WTC crashes i'd guestimate they were doing 200mph - 300mph max. Think about it, they're trying to hit fairly small targets (relatively speaking). The side of of a building is smaller than a runway, so they wouldn't be going flat out as they'd be trying to accurately hit their targets.
If you remember the video footage of the second WTC impact, there was a film crew interviewing a bloke in the street almost below the tower. The camera panned up and you briefly saw the entire plane disappear into the side of the tower. Footage taken from other angles showed the debris (and particularly the engines) pass right through the tower and come out the other side. One of the engines was found lying in the street many blocks away.
I'm pretty sure a jet engine could punch quite a neat hole through concrete walls, just like you can see in the pentagon photos.
My view is that it _was_ an airliner that hit the pentagon. The majority of debris would have been immediately inside the building (probably melted/incinerated), with the densest parts (engines) travelling furthest through the building.
If you remember the video footage of the second WTC impact, there was a film crew interviewing a bloke in the street almost below the tower. The camera panned up and you briefly saw the entire plane disappear into the side of the tower. Footage taken from other angles showed the debris (and particularly the engines) pass right through the tower and come out the other side. One of the engines was found lying in the street many blocks away.
I'm pretty sure a jet engine could punch quite a neat hole through concrete walls, just like you can see in the pentagon photos.
My view is that it _was_ an airliner that hit the pentagon. The majority of debris would have been immediately inside the building (probably melted/incinerated), with the densest parts (engines) travelling furthest through the building.
07 September 2004, 02:35 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a read of the early sites posted and a number of others they linked to. While some credible points were made, they lack any real meat on the bones for me and based much of their conclusions on very poor quality photos / video. Because the first plane didn't form the "cartoon style hole" there were claims that it fired 5 missles in to the tower just before it hit. Again based on the damage I think that unlikely to say the least, it look more like misinterpretation of the poor video footage.
The real clincher for me was the further I read in to this, the more rabid the ravings became.
The real clincher for me was the further I read in to this, the more rabid the ravings became.
07 September 2004, 03:05 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cartoon styllllle plane shape hole....
Originally Posted by Tiggs
so a 100 ton plane wont get that far? so what would? what missle could do that damage?
ppl seem to expect a cartoon styllllle plane shape on the outside wall like tom and jerry!
ppl seem to expect a cartoon styllllle plane shape on the outside wall like tom and jerry!
[img]http://home.comcast.net/~bpickral/images/woman_wtc.jpg[/img]
Last edited by Nimbus; 07 September 2004 at 03:08 PM.
07 September 2004, 03:06 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jason Crozier
Many sources claim Tower 1 circa 470mph, Tower 2 580mph + ...
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0502feat.html
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0502feat.html
07 September 2004, 03:12 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geezer
LOL That is a funny image in my mind.
Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
That is a funny image in my mind.Anyway, I'm sure you've heard of bunkerbusters? They can penetrate very thick re-inforced concrete walls.
I do not think for one minute that it was one of them, I'm just illustrating a point. It is very confusing for people when to support your (the royal you, not you specifically) theory in one way you say, "the building is so strong the plane disappeared and even heavy items like the engines did not penetrate" then in the next instance say, "but a plane is 100 tons and travelling at x miles per hour, it would have gone right thru the building".
Geezer
its a bit of both.....its a 100 ton lump going fast so its not going to hit it and stop dead like wylee coyote into a stop sign!
that said its not a very large object compared to the lump it hit...so while it entered the building it did so with enough energy to waste itsself in the process.
when i was a kid i got very confused at how a 6mph fly goes head on into a 100mph train. the fly (all very quickly) goes from 5mph forward to 100mph backwards- therefore it goes via 0mph...but the train doesnt stop?????? so does the fly exists?
screwed with my head when i was 6!
07 September 2004, 06:31 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arborfield, Berkshire
Posts: 12,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 September 2004, 06:43 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diana did it she was with Dodi on the flight deck, in revenge for MI5 and CIA persecution over the years, the Paris death was all faked, she died on 9/11, and apparently Prince Phillip is a ladyboy, the moon is made of cheese that's why the landings were faked, Tony Blair and Bush are all repitillian under the skin.
07 September 2004, 07:23 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zoog
Diana did it she was with Dodi on the flight deck, in revenge for MI5 and CIA persecution over the years, the Paris death was all faked, she died on 9/11, and apparently Prince Phillip is a ladyboy, the moon is made of cheese that's why the landings were faked, Tony Blair and Bush are all repitillian under the skin.
07 September 2004, 08:51 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another documentry:
Tuesday 07, 21:00, National Geographic
Documentary series examining disasters. A countdown to the moment when 184 were killedin the US Department of Defense building in Washington as a hi-jacked American Airlines jet crashed into it on 11 September 2001.
Also repeated at 00:00
Tuesday 07, 21:00, National Geographic
Documentary series examining disasters. A countdown to the moment when 184 were killedin the US Department of Defense building in Washington as a hi-jacked American Airlines jet crashed into it on 11 September 2001.
Also repeated at 00:00
07 September 2004, 10:42 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
its all realtive, the pentagon is masssssive!
to quote LL Cool J:
place your hands on a hot pan for a second and it seems like an hour, place your hands on a hot woman for an hour and it seems like a second
to quote LL Cool J:
place your hands on a hot pan for a second and it seems like an hour, place your hands on a hot woman for an hour and it seems like a second
lolJust sounded like you thought a 757 had the weight of a Sopwith Camel...
FWIW, as a friend of a friend was there, I'm damn sure it was hit by a 757...
08 September 2004, 09:25 AM
#57
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the conspiracy prog that was on on Monday last night, and all I thought about all the people on it was 'what a bunch of paranoid loonies'!
Ok, like I've already posted on this thread, some of the things seems inconsistent, but these people see conspiracy in their cornflakes!
One of the best comments in the prog was that the niggest mistake all these conspiracy theorists make is the assumption that our governments are competent, when in actual fact they are grossly incompetent, and the fact that all the warning signs were ignored, and the plane managed to penetrate the most highly defended airspace in the US just illustrates what we already know.
Geezer
Ok, like I've already posted on this thread, some of the things seems inconsistent, but these people see conspiracy in their cornflakes!
One of the best comments in the prog was that the niggest mistake all these conspiracy theorists make is the assumption that our governments are competent, when in actual fact they are grossly incompetent, and the fact that all the warning signs were ignored, and the plane managed to penetrate the most highly defended airspace in the US just illustrates what we already know.
Geezer
08 September 2004, 09:27 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last nights show was a joke.....the reason for the WTC being blown up from the INSIDE with charges pre-set was "because buildings just dont fall down like that..it just doesnt happen" ahhhhhh, structural science at its best!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dr Hu
Non Scooby Related
19
08 August 2007 09:26 AM