iwearnosox
Lifer
- Oct 26, 2000
- 16,018
- 5
- 0
On a side note, did anyone see that dateline interview with a guy who worked in that section of the pentagon, and whose 13 year old son was on the plane that hit it?
Ugh...
Ugh...
Huh??Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: NorthRiver
I belive that the Pentagon damage is very suspicious. He makes some very valid points, and I also would like to know why the lawn was not damaged? I really don't belive that a plane that size would totally disentigrate on impact.
Yes 9/11 happened, but there are some issues with this one.
I agree. But the issue still remains - where the fvck is the 4th plane. If it was shot down, it had to come down somewhere.
And the sanding/stoning of the yard is to prevent cleanup vehicles from tearing it up. Also, the first responding fire unit is an airport fire truck (Look at the enlarged image showing it and zoom in on the side of the truck) Evidence in favor of a plane crash. The Pentagon was also built to sustain severe damage. Those stone walls would eat through an aluminium plane in no time.
Neither side can prove that they know the truth. And what was that dumb quote about 'where is the jet fuel?' Uh, maybe it BURNED?
Huh??Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Originally posted by: NorthRiver
I belive that the Pentagon damage is very suspicious. He makes some very valid points, and I also would like to know why the lawn was not damaged? I really don't belive that a plane that size would totally disentigrate on impact.
Yes 9/11 happened, but there are some issues with this one.
I agree. But the issue still remains - where the fvck is the 4th plane. If it was shot down, it had to come down somewhere.
And the sanding/stoning of the yard is to prevent cleanup vehicles from tearing it up. Also, the first responding fire unit is an airport fire truck (Look at the enlarged image showing it and zoom in on the side of the truck) Evidence in favor of a plane crash. The Pentagon was also built to sustain severe damage. Those stone walls would eat through an aluminium plane in no time.
Neither side can prove that they know the truth. And what was that dumb quote about 'where is the jet fuel?' Uh, maybe it BURNED?
Check the crash site in Pennsylvania. See lots of large debris? I didn't think so.Originally posted by: murphy55d
i dont think anyone is questioning that something happened and obviously lives were lost, but doesn't it seem a BIT funny that there is no plane at all there?
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
I heard the towers were in fact designed to take a jet impact- but thats coming from memory of a discovery channel show shortly after the event. I think that catch was that it was designed to take hits from a jet flying at runway approach speeds- not cruising speed. But judging from the video those planes were not going cruising speed.
The Empire State Building was hit once and suffered serious damage, but that was near the top.Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
I heard the towers were in fact designed to take a jet impact- but thats coming from memory of a discovery channel show shortly after the event. I think that catch was that it was designed to take hits from a jet flying at runway approach speeds- not cruising speed. But judging from the video those planes were not going cruising speed.
Originally posted by: Evadman
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
I heard the towers were in fact designed to take a jet impact- but thats coming from memory of a discovery channel show shortly after the event. I think that catch was that it was designed to take hits from a jet flying at runway approach speeds- not cruising speed. But judging from the video those planes were not going cruising speed.
They were designed to take a plane hit from planes of the day. Not the planes of today. Look at how long they stayed up even WITH a plane hit. They were very well designed. A plane hit the Handcock building in Chicago a few years after being built, and it just needed renovation on a few florrs.
There is only 1 structure designed to take a 777 hit, and that is the shell around a nuclear reactor.
Originally posted by: rootaxs
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the Pentagon is made of the same concrete material used to create Nuclear power plants?
I've seen a video once of a Jet plane and an 18-wheeler rocketing straight at a lone wall made of that same material. What i saw next was one heck of an eye-opener. Both the Jet and the big rig just got pulverized. The only thing you could see is the wall, still standing, and what looks like a black ring on it.
The only evidence of anything was what looked like tiny pieces of debris laying all round the wall.
Actually the towers took the impact of the planes just fine, they did their job. The engineers of the WTC did not have computers at the time and could not do analysis of the fuel and materials, which ultimately led to the collapse.Originally posted by: Evadman
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.Originally posted by: lozina
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
I heard the towers were in fact designed to take a jet impact- but thats coming from memory of a discovery channel show shortly after the event. I think that catch was that it was designed to take hits from a jet flying at runway approach speeds- not cruising speed. But judging from the video those planes were not going cruising speed.
They were designed to take a plane hit from planes of the day. Not the planes of today. Look at how long they stayed up even WITH a plane hit. They were very well designed. A plane hit the Handcock building in Chicago a few years after being built, and it just needed renovation on a few florrs.
There is only 1 structure designed to take a 777 hit, and that is the shell around a nuclear reactor.
Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Actually the towers took the impact of the planes just fine, they did their job. The engineers of the WTC did not have computers at the time and could not do analysis of the fuel and materials, which ultimately led to the collapse.
Incidentally the towers collapses in different ways and two different reasons, one at its core the other at its exoskeleton. The mitigating factor was the fire caused by the aircraft fuel. (The fuel itself burned out within minutes of impact, as does most jet fuel. It was the secondary fire from the carpet, walls, etc that was the culprit.)
Originally posted by: Evadman
The point is, that website is a crock of crap![]()