9/11 flick

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Planes are very flimsy, and at even great speeds win not win a battle with concrete, steel or even wood. Not even trees.

Missile in the Pentagon theory - Heard it, studied it, and yeah it's possible. But a missile into the pentagon would be a LOT easier to deal with, explain and counter than an airplane. To hide a missile attack would be more trouble than it's worth. The idea that the plane hit the military wing of the Pentagon is as much chance as being able to line up on the that target, being the only military target hit that day.

Anyone have the original news coverage of the day ? Remember the 5th plane ? thought not. If you have footage from news that day, review it. There is a 5th plane. F18s were dispatched to remove it from the air shortly before the towers fell, they flew over the Pentagon on a trajectory from an off-shore carrier into mainland. This is after the Pennsylvania crew crashed.

Now that's a conspiracy. F18's shooting a passenger plane down over US soil, or anyway, is DEFINATELY something worth covering up... even to the disgrace of President Bush (Yeah, he did sit there for 6 minutes after the towers were wrecked. What was he thinking ? Perhaps thinking about what to do if a passenger jet were shot down on US Soil? Nightmare come true.)

Look at the overall response time of what happened. What you'll see is carefully orchestrated on both sides. We DID have a plan for domestic terror attacks. We DID have a plan for aircraft hijackings / suicide flights. We acted upon those plans pretty damned well. Within 2 hours an american attack was ended, and flights across the nation brought out of the sky. You can't simply Shoot that decision from your hip, no matter how powerful you are.

There was a plan. That plan included USAF planes shooting down civilian airbusses. That plan was put into action. It was covered up. Bush looks retarded for it because he can't cover shit up for anything.

-> Steve
 
First of all, for it to have come in that low, and do what it did, it would have had to have been a crack pilot, or at least experienced in flying small jetcraft.

Now, for the craft itself. I think it was most likely a small commuter jet, obtained and retrofitted by terrorists inside the country, and charged with the specific task of penetrating the concrete barriers and (possibly) carrying an explosive charge to its final destination. Obviously, the explosive idea either didn't happen, or didn't go as planned. This is evident from the lack of collateral damage. Now, if it was a plane, where are the wings and such? Commuter jets are significantly smaller and possibly built to less sturdiness, which would mean that the wings and a lot of the fuselage would have indeed been destroyed.

Now, what about Flight 77? Quite simple... a diversion. Think about it: Why would terrorists blow the WTC? It's a high-profile target. Middle of NYC, Huge buildings, lots of collateral damage, severe blow to morale. All of these things point to a diversionary tactic. Hit the WTC and the Pentagon at the same time, and more eyes are going to be on the WTC every time. Media coverage and public reaction demonstrates this. Almost every bit of attention went to the WTC at the time of the incident. Sure it caused a lot of damage, and a lot of people died, and it upset the country, but it was a mediocre target from a tactical standpoint. However, if they'd managed to get a large explosive through the walls of the pentagon and set off, the nerve center of our military would have been for the most part incapacitated, at least temporarily.

Anyway, there are a lot of holes and loops, but since I'm not stupid enough to try to dig into it, this is how I give it to you. Do as you wish with it.
 
I think thats not a bad theory......There is another theory that the Pentagon Attack was brought on by the American Gov...Taking into the fact that the "plane" that crashed into the Pentagon, just happened to be able to get into restricted air space and hit the side of the Pentagon where there was almost no population....


Read this
 
That makes sense as well, however, the section that was hit was almost complete, hence, possibly very few interior finishings or things of that nature - nothing to get in the way of likely damaging vital systems throughout the complex.
 
Battle Pope, that's quite possibily the best alternative theory I have heard. It makes tactical sense, and has feasiblity. But where is flight 77? I don't see terrorist being able to conjure up a whole flight full of passengers as a diversion.
 
maybe i'm not tracking this 100%, but obviously from the pictures the damage with the pentagon is no where near what a boeing would cause.
eyewitnesses say they heard something sound much smaller than a commercial jet.
so the gov't flew a plane into a nearly empty part of the pentagon? or was it terrorists? for what reason? i dont' remember anything about a 5th plane.
 
I have no idea what happened to flight 77. As I said, there are holes. I haven't done any research because I'm not stupid enough to try to dig into it.
 
what if there never WAS a flight 77?

its STUPID easy to make up a bucnh of names of dead victims... and payoff the FAA to keep quite, afterall, they are a federal orignization..
 
But they wouldn't have to just pay off the FAA. American Airlines, whos business would be hit, the insurance company that covers them, all their employees that were working the ticket counter, and on and on, would all have something to say on the subject.
 
Pope has more to say but, wont. Even if the named 747 jet hit the pentagon dead on without hitting the ground, it should have made more superficial damage, and that's just from logic.

I almost believe theres a conspiracy, but 92b16vx is right about what exactly was on the tape taken from the hotel.
 
Possibly, but I have never seen a plane, which is fairly flimsy, hit a solid reinforced concrete building at supposedly 500mph, so I have no basis, and I am guessing neither does the maker of the clip, on what the results would be. You can always compare the footage of the plane hitting the WTC, those planes were all but disentegrated by the time they came out the other side, no wings, or tails to be seen, yet the cabin portion is seen coming through the other side.

I guess I really don't care for people that make wild accusations without some sort of explaination of their own.
 
I'm in the same boat, Jon, which is why I made a full, well-rounded theory before supporting my opinion. Steve also made a good point - what if 77 was one of those that was shot down over American soil?
 
Originally posted by driverunknown@Sep 2 2004, 04:10 PM
Pope has more to say but, wont. Even if the named 747 jet hit the pentagon dead on without hitting the ground, it should have made more superficial damage, and that's just from logic.

I almost believe theres a conspiracy, but 92b16vx is right about what exactly was on the tape taken from the hotel.
[post=385396]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...


That was no 747 sonny boy. They're saying it was a 767. WAY too big to be flying 2 feet above the ground at ANY speed, much less at 500 mph.
 
I'm not saying that the "Internet flash composition" is right, I'm saying "I believe my theory, and since the gov't has declined to releasing any hard evidence, I will continue to assume that nothing can be ruled out."

Just because Snopes says it, it must be true!

The hammer swings both ways. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top