Printable View
JP: Gotta agree man, you really don't know **** about politic's do you? I can see how you tend to like to bring Bushes failures or whatever into everything political. As for bandwidth, we save bandwidth when you don't talk about pointless, useless, proof-less, non-supported Anti-Bush Administration bullshit. How's that for bandwidth? :rolleyes:
quite simply, why havent videos of the inccident been released??? they must be hiding something, they released videos of the WTC collapsing around people, surely this isnt going to affect anyone further than that did.
Because their aren't any.. They had video's of WTC because there were two planes, each between a couple of minutes and on national TV. The pentagon got hit outta no where and only once.
The press got a hold of the videos way before the FBI could. You had people on the ground with cameras who sold them to the press.
As for the plane hitting the pentagon....it would create enough heat to melt metal, thus melting much of the debree. The same thing happens in many crash sites, depending on how the crash happened. In some you see much less debree than in others. In his video that was shown...He showed planes with a lot of debree, and he also showed just a black mark on a field where a plane crashed. Just something to keep in mind ;).
Cybr1d, show me 1 picture with the pentagon grass ruined before they start construction.. just 1 and I'll shut up and leave. As for your metal theory, a 757 is carry 5+ tons of fuel.. if that started on fire it would burnt down the entire pentagon, not just the plane...Quote:
Originally posted here by Cybr1d
The press got a hold of the videos way before the FBI could. You had people on the ground with cameras who sold them to the press.
As for the plane hitting the pentagon....it would create enough heat to melt metal, thus melting much of the debree. The same thing happens in many crash sites, depending on how the crash happened. In some you see much less debree than in others. In his video that was shown...He showed planes with a lot of debree, and he also showed just a black mark on a field where a plane crashed. Just something to keep in mind ;).
http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne....php?storyid=3
http://physics911.org/net/modules/ne...php?storyid=13
After I saw the pentagon121 flash thing, I spent days at physics911.org and I must say, once you read through that and see the actual numbers and superimposed planes on pictures, it's hard to believe that a 757 Boeing went into the Pentagon.
perhaps you guys should look at this....
sincerest apologies for the source, its unknown as i saved the picture and forgot where it came from...
really DOES leave alot of questions....
The buildings are made of concrete ;)...Concreted doesn't burn AFAIK.Quote:
Cybr1d, show me 1 picture with the pentagon grass ruined before they start construction.. just 1 and I'll shut up and leave. As for your metal theory, a 757 is carry 5+ tons of fuel.. if that started on fire it would burnt down the entire pentagon, not just the plane...
No the grass hasn't burned...perhaps the plane did not hit the grass before crashing. The flash video does bring up many questions, but what happened to the planes though? As for the "witenesses", how many of them would know the difference between a rocket/missile and the engine of a Boeing?
The best way to solve this "mystery" is to build a building similliar to the structure of the Pentagon, and have a 757 fly through it...which would be pretty hard to do :). I've seen missiles hit concrete walls, and the damage those missiles did, looks nothing like the Pentagon one.
I was looking at the flash movie, something LARGE hit the pentagon that is known. I think the entire plane was sucked into the structure and incinerated. You can DEFINITELY see were the widest part of the wings hit but not marks for the entire wing span. These are because after the main wing structure smacked the concrete they folded back? Cybrid there are No videos of the crash outside that released security camera. If they are there I haven't seen any, only eye whitness accounts, which should prove something. I mean if they saw a missile that should be obvious. The hole in the back of the pentagon is in line with the trajectory of the plane, we all see the cockpit seperating in almost every crash. It did that in this case? With enough momentum to breach the outer wall of the block. The size of the object on record via the pentagon video is also consistant with the building height and damage, I mean you can see where the wide parts of the wing hit. The flash video I saw used the size of distant objects to make a case that the object or plane was not to scale, two words on crappy lenses "Focal point".
Its just impossible for the plane to fit into the hole..it is also impossible that it just melts there since its a 757 plane, it's big, and it's in Pentagon, so if it really melts, the press will get a picture of it and will be posted in every newspaper already..
I just suddenly realized that maybe they just plotted a bomb there and they're just making their own stories.
The hole that we're talking about is located at the end of the inpact...no1 said the plane fit through there.Quote:
Its just impossible for the plane to fit into the hole..it is also impossible that it just melts there since its a 757 plane, it's big, and it's in Pentagon, so if it really melts, the press will get a picture of it and will be posted in every newspaper already..
I just suddenly realized that maybe they just plotted a bomb there and they're just making their own stories.
A 757 would melt if enough heat is present. The size of the plane doesn't matter in this case when you have all that fuel present. The concrete walls would have turned the area where the plane would have hit into a furnace generating enough heat to melt most parts of the plane.
Enough heat was generated when the planes hit the towers that it began to melt the metal beams holding the floors above the blaze, resulting in the collapse.