9/11 flick

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

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm

i dont get it
pic number 5
"The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit."

"Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"

avion-incrustation.jpg



assuming that the scale is correct on the superimposed image, there IS damage from the wings

[attachmentid=12]



and what is all of this shit about it didnt dammage the building enough to be a plane
have any of you ever actually seen the pentagon in person???
its fucking HUGE
crashing a plane into the pentagon is like slamming a geo metro into a walmart

plan-large-incrustation.jpg
 

Attachments

  • avion_incrustation_proof.jpg
    avion_incrustation_proof.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 862
Makes a decent point, E. I just don't know. I have my theory, so untill hard evidence is released, that's what I'm going to believe.
 
Originally posted by Prowler+Sep 2 2004, 12:42 PM-->
Prowler @ Sep 2 2004 said:
i dont' remember anything about a 5th plane.
[post=385327]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...

I've never heard anything about a 5th plane ordered to be shot down on American soil until now.


E_SolSi@Sep 2 2004, 3:29PM
and what is all of this shit about it didnt dammage the building enough to be a plane
have any of you ever actually seen the pentagon in person???
its fucking HUGE
crashing a plane into the pentagon is like slamming a geo metro into a walmart


plan-large-incrustation.jpg

[post=385427]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...



I agree with you E, I've seen the Pentagon in person a few years ago and just driving around in made me realize how massive a structure it really is compared to what I had thought before my visit.

Judging from the video and ASSUMING it has not been "doctored" in any way, whatever it was that hit the Pentagon in those 5 still photos appears to look more like an aircraft than a missle. Just what I can make out though.
 
Originally posted by NotUrAverage_Si@Sep 2 2004, 08:26 PM
I agree with you E, I've seen the Pentagon in person a few years ago and just driving around in made me realize how massive a structure it really is compared to what I had thought before my visit.

Judging from the video and ASSUMING it has not been "doctored" in any way, whatever it was that hit the Pentagon in those 5 still photos appears to look more like an aircraft than a missle.  Just what I can make out though.
[post=385471]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...


If you read the article i posted right above you will see that there are missles designed like aircrafts that are quite large......LOTS of eyewitness reported that the sound they heard sounded like a missle and one guy who was 50ft away from the pentgon recalled hearing 2 exlposion....One of the designs of a plane like missle is designed to inpact the structure and send a second bomb through the structure

Like so



calcm_small.jpg


"The BROACH multi-warhead system, also under evaluation for the the Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW), achieves its results by combining an initial penetrator charge (warhead) with a secondary follow-through bomb, supported by multi-event hard target fuzing. The outcome is a warhead and fuse combination that provides for the defeat of hardened targets more than twice that achievable for equivalent single penetrating warhead types, at an equivalent weight and velocity"

Also, check this out...

aahawk_small.jpg


"Another possible aircraft is an Global Hawk outfitted with a Broach hollow charge. At 350 kts it would be easy to confuse a missile laden Global Hawk with a passenger aircraft. The Mobile Microwave Landing System (MMLS), designated AN/TRN-45, is a portable, ground-based microwave transmitter that provides a mobile, precision approach and landing capability for MLS equipped aircraft."

GHwing.jpg


Which part of a 757 did this wing section come from? It seems to have a remarkably similar profile to that of Global Hawk. Wing debris in the Pentagon matches the profile of a Global Hawk. Other debris photographed at the Pentagon seem to match Global Hawk parts and materials.

And How about this...

PentagonLawn.jpg


http://www.the7thfire.com/images/sanddump.jpg]
[img]http://www.the7thfire.com/images/sanddump.jpg

The lawn on the west side of the Pentagon was not damaged by the crash or the blast. See the lawn at the Pentagon after a 100-ton Boeing 757 plows into the Pentagon. Not a scrape, not even a singe. Several witnesses observed that the aircraft had hit the ground and then crashed into the Pentagon. Perhaps this grass is GMO http://www.koolpages.com/killtown911/pentalawn2000.html So why did they cover it with several feet of sand later? If there was a "depleted" uranium warhead used, it would leave a deadly blowback trail of fine radioactive dust that would cause many health problems for the firemen. To stabilize the situation, sand would provide a barrier that would keep the radioactive dust in place. A clue that will begin to show up almost immediately would be health problems of the firemen and their families. First responders were not wearing decontamination clothing and masks until later. Absent any warnings about the dust on their clothing and boots, they probably carried a lot home with them to settle into the carpet and furnishings. Over time, the dust will begin to produce symptoms similar to Gulf War Syndrome. Or perhaps they were just bringing in very heavy equipment for the excavation of the mess. I am looking for an updated photo of the lawn on the west side of the Pentagon. Is it paved or grass?
 
damn, news gets out fast, i just came here to post the link for this, lol.. its crazy
 
Ok, it was not a fucking missile, random people that have never heard a real missile outside of TV don't have a clue what they sound like. And,a guy standing 50ft away that recalled hearing two explosions? HAHAHAHHAHA, OMFG, that's a good one, see, I do demolitions in the military, and if the guy was 50ft away he wouldn't have heard anything, because he would be dead, and if he happened to live through the blast and consequent shock wave, he would have no ear drums.

Missiles the are made to penetrate structures and send in a secondary missile explode when they reach their objective, they don't just make nice neat holes. Not to mention that tose types of missiles can't just be launched by some guy, there would have to be SOOOOO many people in on the attack that it's not even funny. Everybody from the armory where they are stored to air traffic controllers between the launch site and the target. Also clearance for an action of that magnitude is through the roof, this isn't a damn movie where the President and drinking buddy from childhood/Secretary of Defense have little meetings and some guy in a black overcoat just makes shit happen.

Is that a section of wing? Or could it be a bent piece of sheet metal from say and air conditioner unit that got twisted and burned in the wreck? Of all the piece of a plane the wing is most likely going to be obliterated with it's on a commuter, 767, or a missile. And as Eric pointed out, there is clearly damage on the outside where the wings would have made their last stand.

Also, I'd like someone to come up with a motive.
 
Originally posted by pheonixb16aguy@Sep 3 2004, 10:12 AM
however the wings would have done alot more damage and there would be a shit load of rubble from the aircraft... also isn;t it funny that there wasn't a "blackbox" from flight 77 ..hmmmmmmm isn't that wierd... think about that
[post=385639]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...

I'd love to see some past photographic evidence that plane wings are going cause a lot more damage than that to reinforced concrete.

No blackbox? there wasn't, or was it not released? If it was a commuter, they have black boxs too, don't they? Missiles don't, but then where was it launched from?
 
Originally posted by pheonixb16aguy@Sep 3 2004, 10:35 AM
cement ...lol dude THERE IS NO PLANE WHAT SO EVER IN ANY PIC ANYWHERE i dont care if the damage looked big enough to be a plan there is no evidence of a chunk of plane or bigger portion .. only a few tiny scraps ..
[post=385648]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...

I have a video at home of a fighter crashing into the ground during an airshow, guess what, nohting that resembled anything that could have at one time been a plane in this world oor the next was left.

Eric, stop planting evidence, we all know "The Man" did this for "The System".
 
Or you can look at the videos of the planes hitting the WTC,and tell me how much discernable debris was left.
 
This pic definitely doesn't support any kind of missile theory, but we can ignore that, because illogicall hysteria and rampent conspiracy is more fun.

pent2.jpg
 
Originally posted by E_SolSi@Sep 3 2004, 04:50 AM
debris.jpg

[post=385650]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...


In reference to the picture

"But let's hang in there for a bit and examine some of the other "evidence." There were a few bits of debris on the lawn that looked like they might be part of the skin of an American Airlines plane. One piece was quite near to a pickup truck which can be used for a comparison of dimensions. The letters on the debris would correspond with those on an American airliner except for one little detail. It is 1/2 to 1/3 the size. No match. Nice try"


A Quote from Donald Rumsfield....

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
 
debris.jpg


In reference to the picture

"But let's hang in there for a bit and examine some of the other "evidence." There were a few bits of debris on the lawn that looked like they might be part of the skin of an American Airlines plane. One piece was quite near to a pickup truck which can be used for a comparison of dimensions. The letters on the debris would correspond with those on an American airliner except for one little detail. It is 1/2 to 1/3 the size. No match. Nice try"


A Quote from Donald Rumsfield....

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."



The conspriacy is there people....Its up to you whether to except it or not....

pentagonxox30.jpg


"Remember, the 757 must fit into a hole the width of three windows, not the gaping hole from the later activities of the firemen. Note also that no damage to the building occurred at the points where the wings would have struck the outer wall....at over 400 mph. (A 737 would fit the damage profile better.) The fuel tanks would have increased the momentum of the wings creating a hammer-like blow to the facade. No evidence of that. Then how did all that aircraft squeeze into the relatively small hole in the Pentagon shown above? Some hypothesize that the wings became crushed against the side of the fuselage and followed it into the hole. That still doesn't explain why no damage to the exterior of the Pentagon at the point of hypothetical wing impact. Besides, the fuel tanks inside the wings should have burst and most of the fuel exploded outside the building as the plane was extruded through that small hole. Once the tanks are ruptured in the extrusion, the fuel would be squeezed out. But no problem...Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "...and the missile to damage this building"
 
does it surprise anyone the authors of these theories are French?

I would say their is a good chance that someone with no ability to fly a plane would have little trouble CRASHING it into a building.
 
Originally posted by ahedau@Sep 3 2004, 06:48 AM
does it surprise anyone the authors of these theories are French?

I would say their is a good chance that someone with no ability to fly a plane would have little trouble CRASHING it into a building.
[post=385664]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...


are you kidding me? Flying a 100 ton 757 can't be a picnic, not only that...how the hell did he navigate to the exact position of the pentagon?
 
Here's a vid of a Jet crashing with a full load of fuel....Jet-A.....in a forest....


WTC Crash Vid...Plane into building......

Note during the few frames before the second plane hit....the prior damage to the first hit tower shows the full wing structure into the face of the building...the wings sucked up and followed....


But......the plane never exited the tower....to an extend that it could do the same or greater damage to a re-inforced steel/concrete Pentagon...and pass thru a full 5 buildings after it hit the re-inforcement of the first building. I can say that planes are flimsy....I know...I build them...the thickes metal on any plane is the spar, and that is still not thick enough to withstand extreme lateral forces.....such as a building. I had a plane hit a pelican on landing...the pilican almost took off the intire wing....so a 20 lb bird can almost sever a wing...I'm sure a 5000ton wall could fold the wings in like switchblade knife. But what disturbs me is the exit wound on the last wall in the Pentagons pics...it appears that the hole is to perfect...and by the time that the fusealage would have made it that far, with that speed, and thru all the walls and objects in the way........well...it's litterally imposible. Ever shoot a bullet in to a peice of wood, and burn the wood to get the bullet back out......look at it....it mushooms......not peirce.


Keep on thinking guys....If I sat down and think about it to much, I could prolly tell you exactly what is was.....but I'm not in the mood to really investage it.



Just remember....A lot of People died in this and the other incedents that happened that day....Remember them and their families....as it will be 3 years to the day in 8 days..... :(
 
i'm just some asshole.. and i know people will believe what they want but.. um.. i was there. i was on a road perpedicular to the pentegon. It was absolutley a commercial air line. as for it being a 777 or a 767 or a 757 i dont know im not a plane expert.

what i do know is what i saw, on top of this my sisters father in law was sitting on the road the plane few over he was in a bucket truck, after telling me his story he said he said it was certainly a commercial plane two eye witness accounts i can't explain the shit that happened to the building.. i dont knwo the effects of a plane hitting a building.. but i know this.. that is no ordinary building. So take conventional thinking of how a stucture reacts after being hit by something like that. again.. i was close i mean really close.. no mistaken what it was.

a side note, right after this two jets came in seriously 8-14 seconds after the plane hit. just before getting to the pentegon they did a serious pull up.. i dont know if it was like a withdraw to not fly over that air space or what .. now if you want to start some theories on that one.. with maybe the jets firing on the jet missing or.. shotting down the jet whatever.. but i saw that plane hit the pentegon. and i sat in the traffic that followed because of it.

edit: two military jets.. i left that out looked like f-16 f-18 style fighters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top