Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htmNote the photo that shows debris from the plane.
Also, Ush asked a perfectly valid question which more or less debunks the whole missile thing. What kind of missile leaves burning aviation fuel behind?
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point.
There was no damage to the heilpad and jet fuel does not just explode and disapear. There should have been landscape damage from burning jet fuel.
Originally posted by ESP07the entire A sector was burnung almost. The E ring collapsed BECAUSE it was burning.
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point.There was no damage to the heilpad and jet fuel does not just explode and disapear. There should have been landscape damage from burning jet fuel.
Originally posted by ESP07
There was no damage to the heilpad and jet fuel does not just explode and disapear. There should have been landscape damage from burning jet fuel.
This is just a query, as we don't get as much commentary on this in Australia - but how many actual experts are there in the US who are saying things like that? I have heard and read the opinions of plenty of people who say things like "there should have been..." and I can't help but wonder how these people know what there should have been when they are just civilian commentators as it were.
Yes, they might say "logically speaking" but crashes, blast radius, debris scatter patterns and all have terribly high variables, and it isn't that uncommon to hear an expert on the news say something like "in 30 years I haven't seen anything like this" or "the investigation will take time as the situation differs from those of a similar nature."
Thus I would like to know, for the sake of the debate, how many reputable experts in the field of air crash investigations have said exactly that "there should have been..." and that because of that "should have been..." it was unlikely it was a plane?
*cough* Found thsi video and thought I'd post it here.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/36143/The_Strike_On_The_Pentagon.html?autoplay=true#Main
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
To all of you conspiracy theory advocates....If a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon then what happened to the plane? and all the people on it?
As PVS said, it could have been shot down anywhere. Or, it might not have existed. Or it might have landed somewhere else, etc. I don't think anyone is claiming to have all the answers about the events of that day.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I know Shrub is an a$$hole but it was muslim extremesists that did this.
Shurb? I don't know why I found that so funny.
However, I personally don't deny it was muslim extremists that carried out the events of that day. But, I don't think the current administration did much to prevent that day from happening. And certainly in the case of the pentagon, has lied to us about the truth of the events of that day.
ive read the first 5 pages....i don't think i could handle another 11 pages of bs. Anyway, I think there is soemthing weird about it, because all of the facts point to it being a plane, but the damage is not consistant(sp?) to the size of a 757. Also, why isn't the grass torn up? You would have to have damn good accuracy and control of a plane for the bottom to hit the pentagon (this is an estimate) around the first 50 feet of the building(in height).
Although you also need to consider, where did the plane go? It isn't something so secretive that they would blow up one of our planes which cost a good deal of money, and besides, it isn't the government's plane to blow up. So many people would have had to be kept hushed for this had something like that been the case. This spans from everyone who works at AA to the people on the plane, their family, friends, co-workers and etc.
Do I think it was a missile? Deffinately not. It was probably misrepresented by the media.
Although it never got as much coverage as anything else, and you'd think thy would want to talk about the government officials who died, because they are much more important than all the normal people who worked at the WTC.
So ya...I'm done....I haven't reads any posts within the last 10 pages, so for all I know this could have all been said, but who cares, right?
wow...watch the loose change documentary, it raises questions....
but i ahve an answer,
.
The wreckage is inconsistant with the size of the plane b/c there are lasers around the pentagon that malfunctioned, and it zapped the plane as it went past, but missing the very front, which is the thing that they carried out with drapery on it. They didn't want questions such as , wtf? why is only the first 10 ft of the plane intact?
im a genius *pats self on back*