steve_cronin
N/A
That time lapse "security camera" fottage released on BBC TV this morning showed smoke coming from buildings to the left of the impact BEFORE the flames 7 explosion become apparent.
Curiouser & curiouser.
Steve Cronin
Curiouser & curiouser.
Steve Cronin
PhilipStapleton
New member
For linguistically challenged consipiracy theorist
In summary, it says that there was an initial story of a bomb in a truck at the Penatgon on September 11th. Pictures of the scene (see for yourself) do not seem to reflect the damage expected if a 757-200 had crashed (limited destruction, mainly by fire; top floors not destroyed; only the first ring of buildings affected; no large peices of debris; no convincing explanation of what happened to the fuel.)
In summary, it says that there was an initial story of a bomb in a truck at the Penatgon on September 11th. Pictures of the scene (see for yourself) do not seem to reflect the damage expected if a 757-200 had crashed (limited destruction, mainly by fire; top floors not destroyed; only the first ring of buildings affected; no large peices of debris; no convincing explanation of what happened to the fuel.)
Paulka
New member
Yes!
And Hitler may still be alive ..... after all!
;-)))
Paul
And Hitler may still be alive ..... after all!
;-)))
Paul
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Re: Did they find any bodies?
There would surely have been some remains????????????
So what did they do with the plane - did they shoot it down or what?????
There would surely have been some remains????????????
So what did they do with the plane - did they shoot it down or what?????
Giles
New member
Re: ghost plane?- of course NOT
The photo's on this web-site are from selected angles, and do not show everything. This is clearly just some loon on the net trying to start a daft conspiracy theory!
If you are going to try and dis-prove something this big, why only show a few select picutres??? It's selective reporting like this that has left thousands of people beliving that the moon landings were fake... (And before anyone starts...No they are not fake.)
The photo's on this web-site are from selected angles, and do not show everything. This is clearly just some loon on the net trying to start a daft conspiracy theory!
If you are going to try and dis-prove something this big, why only show a few select picutres??? It's selective reporting like this that has left thousands of people beliving that the moon landings were fake... (And before anyone starts...No they are not fake.)
pugwash
New member
No mystery
When a plane smacks into a cliff hardly anything larger than a foot square is left intact, except possibly the engines which are surprisingly small under the cowlings etc. The structure of the Pentagon is immense and solid. The plane was swallowed and chewed into tiny bits. The fuel burned off in the first few moments. No mystery.
When a plane smacks into a cliff hardly anything larger than a foot square is left intact, except possibly the engines which are surprisingly small under the cowlings etc. The structure of the Pentagon is immense and solid. The plane was swallowed and chewed into tiny bits. The fuel burned off in the first few moments. No mystery.
Bergman
New member
The Japanese (I think) did a test on a concrete structure used in the nuclear industry.
Basically they sat a F4 Phantom on a rocket sled and fired it into the block at about 400kts.
The Phantom was dust - literally. Nothing solid remained. The structure had superficial damage.
Impact speed was probably close to 500 kts so remains of aircraft would be in similar state to those of the F4.
The frames I saw from security camera were time lapse shots and if you consider the distance travelled in 1 second at 500kts (about 800ft) then its unlikely the aircraft would appear on screen.
Perhaps there were 2 other aircraft behind a grassy knoll.
Basically they sat a F4 Phantom on a rocket sled and fired it into the block at about 400kts.
The Phantom was dust - literally. Nothing solid remained. The structure had superficial damage.
Impact speed was probably close to 500 kts so remains of aircraft would be in similar state to those of the F4.
The frames I saw from security camera were time lapse shots and if you consider the distance travelled in 1 second at 500kts (about 800ft) then its unlikely the aircraft would appear on screen.
Perhaps there were 2 other aircraft behind a grassy knoll.
G
Guest
Guest
Much as I love conspiracy theories, this one is not convincing at all. The damage you see is exactly what I as a layman would expect to see from a plane of the type described, and nothing like a truck bomb.
For a start, anyone who remembers the truck bombs in the City will recall that the devastation stretches in all directions, and damages the facade of building over a wide area. Truck bombs are not however very good at knocking buildings down. The entrance hole visible in the photos and the deep damage into the building, while the surrounding facade gras etc. is relatively unscathed looks exactly like what I would expect to see if the building had been hit by a large aircraft.
Likewise the dimensions of the aircraft: the argument that severl floors should have been swept away doesn't wash with the overlayed outline of the plane's fuselage on the building. The fuselage looks tiny compared to the facade, and one would not expect a particularly big hole. Anyone who's stepped on a 757 will remember that the diameter of the fuselage is not very big.
As for the absence of damage from wings - wings are very lightweight and one wouldn't necessarily expect more than superficial damage from them. One might expect engines to punch holes, but it is impossible to judge from the photographs what holes in the walls there may be.
And in view of the fireball, did the idiot who set up the website really expect puddles of unburnt fuel to be lying around?
No, I find the one about the falsification of the man on the moon photo much more convincing - now THAT's one I can buy.
For a start, anyone who remembers the truck bombs in the City will recall that the devastation stretches in all directions, and damages the facade of building over a wide area. Truck bombs are not however very good at knocking buildings down. The entrance hole visible in the photos and the deep damage into the building, while the surrounding facade gras etc. is relatively unscathed looks exactly like what I would expect to see if the building had been hit by a large aircraft.
Likewise the dimensions of the aircraft: the argument that severl floors should have been swept away doesn't wash with the overlayed outline of the plane's fuselage on the building. The fuselage looks tiny compared to the facade, and one would not expect a particularly big hole. Anyone who's stepped on a 757 will remember that the diameter of the fuselage is not very big.
As for the absence of damage from wings - wings are very lightweight and one wouldn't necessarily expect more than superficial damage from them. One might expect engines to punch holes, but it is impossible to judge from the photographs what holes in the walls there may be.
And in view of the fireball, did the idiot who set up the website really expect puddles of unburnt fuel to be lying around?
No, I find the one about the falsification of the man on the moon photo much more convincing - now THAT's one I can buy.
gtmoore
New member
The sand and gravel over the lawn - a better surface for the (re)construction vehicles to move around on?
Buck
New member
Alien abduction
Its obvious that Aliens abducted the plane just after impact.
Buck
Is more than one octopus, octopi or octopussies?
Its obvious that Aliens abducted the plane just after impact.
Buck
Is more than one octopus, octopi or octopussies?
ccscott49
Active member
I was a soldier in NI, I've seen the aftermath of quite a few bombs, in cars trucks etc, the hole in the pentagon is not a truck. When the planes hit the towers, you saw not very big holes in the buildings and lots of flames for only an instant, the fuel burns off very quickly, look at the piper alpha, there was an awful lot more fuel went up there, (Liquid gas) and it burned off quickly, but the devestation! Well I think the damage was caused by a plane strike, IMHO of course!
trev
New member
Had tea with Lord Lucan yesterday, he rode in on Shergar, after having a weekend on the toot with Elvis.
Trev
Trev
billskip
Well-known member
Bit sick I think..People lost their lives...Next it will be about the towers?? anybody see "big lumps of airplane" in the towers ground zero??....Sick sick sick...dont need this thanks pmcbot...
Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk
www.macsyachting.com
Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk
www.macsyachting.com
PaulJ
Member
Until my recent retirement I was a pilot for 30 years, the last 3 1/2 years being on 757s and I have to say that those pictures were pretty much what I would have expected if an aircraft flew into a building. Aluminium burns beautifully if you get it hot enough - a few bits of engine and undercarriage are all I would expect to find. If it was a truck bomb that caused that mess, what is supposed to have happened to the aircraft and it's passengers which are now missing?
Also, if you want to produce a convincing conspiracy theory, you need to get your facts and figures straight. The dimensions quoted are nearly right, though not quite and the speeds quoted are way out though of course we have no way of knowing the actual speed at which it hit.
Also, if you want to produce a convincing conspiracy theory, you need to get your facts and figures straight. The dimensions quoted are nearly right, though not quite and the speeds quoted are way out though of course we have no way of knowing the actual speed at which it hit.
G
Guest
Guest
Wrong forum?
All very interesting if true, but what has it got to do with yachting??
All very interesting if true, but what has it got to do with yachting??
ccscott49
Active member
Re: Wrong forum?
Naff all!
Naff all!
KevB
Active member
Not into conspiracies or anything but why was there a lot more of the plane left over from the lockerbie bombing also considering the Lockerbie plane blew up in the air how come there is a lot more damage on the ground. Worth comparing the pictures.
See
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crashpic.html
See
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crashpic.html
ccscott49
Active member
A lot of people died in those two terrorist attacks, I for one would rather let them rest in peace! Has anyone considered there may well be people on this forum who lost friends in the attacks, I tyhink its time we stopped this thread. IMHO