*Sonic*

I didnt say a missile was 16ft wide , I implied that the hole 16ft wide could not have fit a 757 Airliner into it

Ex Military people have confirmed that the hole 'could possibly' have been created by something like a bunker buster, and definatly NOT an Airliner

The Pentagon isnt a Conspiracy Theory, its a Conspiracy

Its Theorectical that if you were to buy a raffle ticket, in Theory you could win,
If you actually buy a raffle ticket, its no longer a theory that you could win, it becomes a probability, the more tickets you buy, the higher the probability, the higher the probability, it becomes a possiblity

the more eveidence that we see that it wasnt a plane that hit, means we were lied to originally, and means that there is something more to it than we are being told, or led to believe

It then only becomes a Theory that a Plane hit the Pentagon, as there is absolutly NO evindence that shows it was a plane

It is fact that soomething else caused the damage

Also in the pictures of the Pentagon, after the collapse of the sttructure, and alleged 3000 degrees heat from burning fuel, how come there is an open book on a wooden stool, that doesnt have a mark on it

Or the floor above having a filing cabinet with a pc monitor sat on top, completly untouched

Im not saying any of these statemens are true, but it certainly raises questions and doubt, as to what actually happened

turbotroll

You tell me. Does it not raise even the slightest red flag that the leaseholder admits that the building was 'pulled', when the official story was that it collapsed due to fire damage?

Imagine telling your insurance company that your house burned down, only to admit you blew it up. I think you would be investigated immediatley!

FrenchBoy

Well quite, so why would he say that?

FrenchBoy

How is this a fact?

*Sonic*

We were told a Plane hit the Pentagon, show me those Facts

there are absolutly NO FACTS AT ALL, NO evidence, NO Proof, and NO footage that a Plane hit, show me those

Therefore it is FACT that something else caused the damage

FrenchBoy

Are you for real?
Please tell me you're not something to do with the police force as your CP suggests.

turbotroll

Because he could. Just as the U.S government could - they had 'no idea' that anyone would plan to crash an airliner into a building, although they admitted they had planned drills for the exact same thing on the morning of Sept 11th.

Draw your own conclusions.

*Sonic*

Frenchboy

Just remind me what it is exactly you think happened at the Pentagon?

akshay67

Interesting. I don't recall any pictures of the plane when hit Pentagon - were any ever released in the first place? Anyone got any links?

Cheers!

PS - French Boy, I am assuming you can help out here ;-)

Sprint Chief

You are joking aren't you?

A friend of mine was one of the designers of the bunker buster, I'll have a word with him if you want, but I think you'll find these "ex military people" are more rent-a-quote than useful info! I've witnessed the aftermath of several hard target penetrations (oo-er missus) and none of them left a 16ft hole. Like I said, they focus energy not spread it. I'll see if I can find any examples from public source for you.

Judging from my first hand experience a 16ft hole is not unreasonable for an impact with an airliner.

*Sonic*

I wouldnt know what a missile impact looks like, ill take your word for that, and that yes these 'ex military' could just well be 'rent a quote'

and to quote yourself

Judging from my first hand experience a 16ft hole is not unreasonable for an impact with an airliner.

You are joking arent you !

Did you see the footage of the 2nd plane hitting the tower and the hole, and impact that made

IMHO that was definalty bigger than a 16 ft hole, and there was remains of the plane on the ground

Your not seriously suggesting a 757 with some height of 44ft, approx 120ft wide (including wings) can make and fit through a 16ft hole, and dissapear into vapour

Did the wings and tail of the plane dissappear before they hit the building, After the impact of whatever caused it there are 3 very large reels of cable in front of and slightly to the right of the hole, directly in the path the plane allegedly would have took

there are no visible marks to the building that wings or tail hit it

FrenchBoy

Show me the pictures of the plane wreckage from the twin towers.
As has been said before (countless times now) this sort of impact isnt going to leave the cartoon plane imprint that most people seem to be expecting.

Sprint Chief

Don't compare crashing into the steel structure of the WTC to the hardened concrete on the Pentagon, they are not the same thing at all.

The WTC is what we would term a "soft" target, easy to penetrate, the pentagon is a "hard" target, requires a very specialised weapon system to cause the damage.

The accelerations experienced by the nose of the aircraft would have been enormous, some very strange and difficult to predict events would have taken place in impact. I'm not saying I can predict these in any kind of detail, but expect the unexpected here! However I would only expect a small portion of the fuselage to do any significant damage to the concrete. Probably scarring only from the wings if anything.

Sprint Chief

Additional thought: how do you know the aircraft wings were level at impact? If the aircraft had a significant roll angle there would have been no impact either side, but a large gouge in the ground beneath the impact point and additional scarring to the roof and inner sections of the pentagon.

Just a thought!

FrenchBoy

Give up mate. This is like arguing with christians - it seems to be more a matter of faith rather than fact for some people.

*Sonic*

I know what your saying Chief, but there isnt a single piece of wreckage at the pentagon at all, and the reels of cable never moved at all

Also that particular section of the Pentagon was under re-construction as part of renovation works that was going on at the time, so that particular section was likely to be weaker than other parts, hence needing the work doing to it


I would like to believe it was a plane, but there isnt any evidence, only what we were told on the news etc

And unitl such time as some evidence appears I intend to keep an open mind as to what happened

turbotroll

No faith here - just facts for your own contemplation.

*Sonic*

French Boy shut the f*** up if you havent got anything constructive to add

Im still waiting to hear what your thoughts are on what happened, instead of the constan dissing you appear to be doing

Chief, again I agree that there should be some kind of gouging on the ground, but again there isnt any at all

turbotroll

Here's an interesting little piece about the pentagon.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/me...tagon.php#Main

Sprint Chief

No harm in keeping an open mind, and I have to admit I've not witnessed any commercial airliner flying into a concrete building so there is some stretching going on here!

However I can confirm the entry hole and damage does not seem to me commensurate with a missile strike. It would be considerably smaller.

A quick check shows the fuselage diameter of a Boeing 757 is under six yards, which is absolutely in line with the damage of the building. Why is there no scarring from the wings? Well there is very little material in the wing spread over a large area, compared to a lot more material in the fuselage (including human cargo RIP) which would have considerably more destructive force. To me, the aircraft theory "fits" the evidence considerably more accurately.

Incidentally, for those that claim there is no security camera video footage, I found some on the web without difficulty. The footage is only a few frames per second (typical of such systems) so doesn't capture the aircraft. Also, mysteriously, the date stamp reads 12th Sept, but it is definitely footage of the pentagon and I think they would have trouble rebuilding and then blowing it up again just for the sake of conspiracy! Secondly, if it was a conspiracy, I would expect them to get details like the date on a piece of film right!

Buzzer

Yes turbotroll but to answer all those questions look here. I was trying to find the digitally enhanced video of the plane hitting the building but couldn't find it. However its being screened on National Geographics programme "9/11 Seconds from Disaster". It (meaning the vid) clearly shows a plane slamming into the wall.

Just Devils advocate

akshay67

There are links in this thread to the video footage of planes crashing into the Twin Towers. There are countless pictures too.

I am looking to find the same - at least decent pictures - from the Pentagon crash.

I thought you may have links, but it seems you don't. Does anyone else?

turbotroll

Of course ;-)


But what type of plane?

turbotroll

And snopes ain't too hot either.......

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/207209.html

Devils advocate ;-)

Sprint Chief

What concerns me the most is that if it was a missile or a fighter or similar than American Airlines flight 77 is still up there flying around

Now that really does defy the laws of Physics!

Nimbus

Take a look here..

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showpost....1&postcount=37

Looks like evidence of a plane to me....

Buzzer

This type mate

Buckrogers

I'm no expert BUT....

If it was a 757 that hit the pentagon, why does there appear to be very little damage that would have been caused by the wings hitting the building? (see links for photos).

Typically, the engines of the plane are normally identifiable after a crash. The remains of one engine was found inside. Did it just fit through one of the windows? Or did the wings fold in and go in the 16ft main hole.....?

The wings joining the main body of the plane IS the strongest point of most planes.

turbotroll

But the engines:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/penta...en/wr-eng.html

Buzzer

turbotroll

I dont support any theory mate i'm just trying to balance the argument. Admittedly though i have swayed toward the conspiricy theory regarding the Pentagon but having seen a few clips of the computer enhanced film of the plane hitting the pentagon i'm not too sure.

I want to see National Geographics "9/11 Seconds from Disaster" which is on in a few nights before i subscribe to any theory I have to say that there is loads of intersting reading especially regarding the Pentagon plane,....................... i shall just have to wait and see the programme