Is this proof or what?

[darkpoet837]

How do people know what a real missile sounds like? How often do you hear a large plane crashing very close by? It's not a sound you could recognize easily probably.

You have a point there. But how often do planes crash into buildings and make perfect punches out of concrete buildings?

 

 

 

That's the thing. No one can really predict what will happen to a building when a plane crashes into it. It's a very specific condition and the only way to test it is to actually crash a plane into a building to observe if the same thing happens. Since there are no such tests, people can't just say that the Pentagon couldn't have gotten destroyed in such a way.

 

 

 

Here is a plane hitting a concrete wall at 500 MPH. It is not a boing 747, but none the less, it shows how week plane bodies are.

[thefoo1000]

Well it's what you belive. Although the US goverment is very shady you never know what they may do...but here is a picture of some plane fusulage

 

from Flight 77

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

[Mercifull]

Same old conspiracies debunked over and over again yet they still hang around because people are too gullible.

 

 

 

Read this for a start: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

[king_kenny69]

Hearsay, not proof.

[warren211]

sounds like pretty heavy proof. but that vid of the impact from the pentagon itself, how come that was never confiscated? while it could be that the pentagon was hit by a missile from a landed plane, i don't think the FBI was involved. perhaps they didn't want the videos to become famous on youtube giving unneccessary publicity or false conspiracy theories to arise.

[Mercifull]

sounds like pretty heavy proof. but that vid of the impact from the pentagon itself, how come that was never confiscated? while it could be that the pentagon was hit by a missile from a landed plane, i don't think the FBI was involved. perhaps they didn't want the videos to become famous on youtube giving unneccessary publicity or false conspiracy theories to arise.

"sounds like" and "is proof" are two completely separate entities. This video is nothing more than half truths and misconceptions.

[ThoseTheBrokes]

whose got answers against the conspiracy?

 

 

 

I mean, where is the wreckage?

 

what was the real reason the tapes weren't released?

 

why was the damage to the Pentagon minimal?

[Amaranth_GTO]

whose got answers against the conspiracy?

 

 

 

I mean, where is the wreckage?

 

what was the real reason the tapes weren't released?

 

why was the damage to the Pentagon minimal?

The wreckage was removed. if you go to the popular mechanics link, it shows a lot of pictures of the wreckage.

 

The tapes werent realesed because the fbi didnt want the tapes to be put all over youtube with people saying that its proof that its not a plane because all you can see is a silver blur from the high speeds.

 

The damage was minimal because the pentagon has blast proof windows, so some windows remained intact, and when a plane hits a reenforced concrete wall it doesnt make a perfect cutout hole like it does in Loony Tunes.

[ThoseTheBrokes]

whose got answers against the conspiracy?

 

 

 

I mean, where is the wreckage?

 

what was the real reason the tapes weren't released?

 

why was the damage to the Pentagon minimal?

The wreckage was removed. if you go to the popular mechanics link, it shows a lot of pictures of the wreckage.

 

The tapes werent realesed because the fbi didnt want the tapes to be put all over youtube with people saying that its proof that its not a plane because all you can see is a silver blur from the high speeds.

 

The damage was minimal because the pentagon has blast proof windows, so some windows remained intact, and when a plane hits a reenforced concrete wall it doesnt make a perfect cutout hole like it does in Loony Tunes.

 

 

 

good enough for me.

[speedofsound]

Same old conspiracies debunked over and over again yet they still hang around because people are too gullible.

 

 

 

Read this for a start: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

 

 

 

That article immediately came to mind when I saw this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They didn't release the tapes because there was a ongoing investigation, at the time, into a terrorist suspect.

[Achilleus]

That's the thing. No one can really predict what will happen to a building when a plane crashes into it. It's a very specific condition and the only way to test it is to actually crash a plane into a building to observe if the same thing happens. Since there are no such tests, people can't just say that the Pentagon couldn't have gotten destroyed in such a way.

 

 

 

It doesn't quite look like a plane crashing site, but i give you that we can't know and it might just look like that. What the hell is a supermoderator? Sounds like very important.

 

 

 

About the topic. Thing is that i don't really care about terrorist or the american government. For all pictures i have seen it just looks more like i'd expect a missile to look like and it looks more like controlled explosions that took down the twin towers. Looks the same when they purposely blast a building with demolitions, but heck what do i know about these subjects?

 

 

 

Also i think 911 and the patriot act, oil fields in afghanistan, the iraq war.. all that fits together so nicely.

 

 

 

So if you ask me i find the terrorist act less likely then the other scenario, but i'm just a distant observer and didn't even have TV at that time.

 

 

 

So.. not my government and austria has reasonable good relations to the middle east --> next to no terrorist threat.

 

 

 

1) Osama admitted it was Al_Qeuida!

 

 

 

2) Theres lots of CCTV evidence of Terrorists suspects getting onto the planes

 

 

 

3) Theres even a phone call from the pennsalvain (Sorry about Spelling) Flight saying there were terrorists taking over the plane.

 

 

 

4) Not entirely sure but I think a hostess also called air traffic control on one of the flights heading towards the twin towers.

 

 

 

Its a hell of a lot of trouble to set up something like that

[goldphishies]

Dude... these conspiracy theories are getting old.

 

Kelem ryu... you wouldn't happen to be Alex Jones, would you? You sure sound like him...

 

And abelmsi. It's 'or what'.

[Brandon_7]

Yes, a movie based on what a bunch of people "think" they saw is definitely proof. Could you please explain to me how it's impossible that an airplane made the sounds that they heard? Or how it's impossible that the plane didn't actually strike the Pentagon but landed next to it? I'm just about positive that it happened entirely too fast for anyone to be able to actually identify what they saw. What random people believe happened or what they thought they heard/saw (by the way, I'd love to know how these people found out what missiles look and sound like without ever having been next to one) is by no stretch of any idiot's imagination proof.

[hohto]

1) Osama admitted it was Al_Qeuida!

 

 

 

FBI doesn't look Osama for 911.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

[TotalTalker]

It took about 30 seconds for my computer to load it.

 

 

 

Oh, and how could the plane make a perfect hole in the building? :-k

[goldphishies]

It took about 30 seconds for my computer to load it.

 

 

 

Oh, and how could the plane make a perfect hole in the building? :-k

 

 

 

It's been mentioned before, when it hits, it doesn't make a perfect cut out.

 

On the perfect hole. When planes crash, they explode. Fireballs are naturally circular. It punched through the layers, carrying debris with it, ending in a perfectly circular hole.

 

Every theory in this topic was debunked on a History Channel program(gah, can't remeber the name!). Do a google search, and watch it.

[ltb2006]

I wouldn't say it's proof but it is certainly a stronger subject for debate than the twin towers "conspiracy" or the moon landing one.

[TotalTalker]

I wouldn't say it's proof but it is certainly a stronger subject for debate than the twin towers "conspiracy" or the moon landing one.

 

 

 

I would, but it seems like too much proof, if you know what I mean. It seems as though if everyone believed this, then the plane surely couldn't of gone into the Pentagon.

 

 

 

Oh, and thanks for your reply gold :D

[tameelf]

in the last six years whilst not playing runscape i have covered most off the anomilies surrounding 911. if theres somthing new i would like to see it.

 

whilst the fbi are no longer looking for osma he is reported to have died at tora bora during the first american /afgan bombings.his entire family left the usa within hours of the planes impacting

 

 

 

in a osma interview he never admited responsability.in fact he stated the american ppl need to look within to find the perpetrators

 

 

 

most people dont know that on 911 besides the pentigon and the towers another building at ground zero emploded this was wtc7. built and reenforsed to hold new yorks emergency planning responce structure.abandoned shortly after the towers impacts

 

 

 

whats so strange about this implosion is fires caused its demise . also the bbc and ccn reported 40 mins in advance of its colapse in a live feed that somehow was lost 5 mins before it was demolished.

 

theres a vid on utube worth watching search bbc wtc7

 

so who are popular mechanics. owened /funded by the randolph hearst group well known for disinformation theres also plenty of utube vids inteveiwing ppl from popular mechanics who in my opinion are looking very uncomfortabal sitting in the same studio as a truther.

 

 

 

i stopped bothering and wondering about what hit the pentigon after i seen wtc7 footage. and went to the bbc site to view their explanation

 

 

 

best site i have found to date is whatreallyhappened.com

[Nom]

^ Dude learn to spell. I could barely understand anything there, and what I did didn't make sense.

[Mercifull]

Very hard to read post, tameelf, but you might like to read this...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... acy_2.html

 

 

 

It's the same old stuff that has been explained over and over again as "evidence" of a conspiracy. Unsubstantiated rubbish.

[jade_slayer6]

How do people know what a real missile sounds like? How often do you hear a large plane crashing very close by? It's not a sound you could recognize easily probably.

You have a point there. But how often do planes crash into buildings and make perfect punches out of concrete buildings?

 

 

 

That's the thing. No one can really predict what will happen to a building when a plane crashes into it. It's a very specific condition and the only way to test it is to actually crash a plane into a building to observe if the same thing happens. Since there are no such tests, people can't just say that the Pentagon couldn't have gotten destroyed in such a way.

 

 

 

Here is a plane hitting a concrete wall at 500 MPH. It is not a boing 747, but none the less, it shows how week plane bodies are.

 

 

 

That's a F-4 wild weasel there bud lightweight air-to-air combat vietnam warplane anything could've crumbled that old thing.

[jade_slayer6]

whose got answers against the conspiracy?

 

 

 

I mean, where is the wreckage?

 

what was the real reason the tapes weren't released?

 

why was the damage to the Pentagon minimal?

 

 

 

If the jet fuel tank didn't explode on impact the plane would've ramed through the building and exploded internally. Say if you shoot someone with a bullet point blank in the back of the head, it isn't messy the bullet stays lodged inside the cranium with the obvious blood from the entry point.