What the hell?! wheres the plane?!

[db]

fleshconsumed, are you old enough to drive?

 

[Zorba]

<< But the point does still remain

Of course the point still remains. Just consider these two aspects. The plane weighed ~ 90,100 kg and was travelling at ~144 m/s^2. Can you imagine the force on impact? >>



BTW: I am agreeing with you. There is not much left of a plane when it hits something like that going that fast.

Not sure about this, but didn't the plane hit the ground first? If that was the case the wings may have snapped off before it hit the building, and were probably melted by large part by the post-accident fire.

EDIT: Forgot to put in the end quote.

 

[killface]

What would anyone possibly have to gain from lying about this?

 

[MrDingleDangle]

<< @burnedout
That's right. And it penetrated four inches of concrete.
Just like I said, pentagon walls are made from blocks and they have windows, which makes them much more vulnerable to stress, if this is so hard to believe, i'll get you some examples.

1.In 194.... whatever (don't remember the exact date)... a plane, while flying in the fog, crashed in Empire State Building; what's more important - one of the engines penetrated wall and crashed the elevator shaft... So why Pentagon walls where the B757th engines were supposed to struck, aren't damaged?
2.Another example is a small one-engine plane, that crashed 2 months ago here in Illinois; this private plane which was no more than 20 feet in length managed to penetrate the wall of a condominimum building; the effect of B757 striking the Pentagon should have been much worse.
3.You might have seen the footage of B757 hitting one of the WTC towers? Well, watch it again - the plane went through the building like knife through butter - you could actually see the plane debris flying out of the opposite side of the building...

So, my point is that there should have been much more damage to the Pentagon, and there should have been some debris left on the site...

@MrDingleDangle
Moron yourself, or say something smart for once in your whole life... >>



y dont u put your brain to something usefull instead of trying to disprove something that people saw happen...u still have yet to say what happened to the plane if it didnt hit the building...maybe if u took some physics and chem. classes you would start to learn about the scientific basis for materials...oh im sorry i guess your not in high school yet, well in a couple of years you will learn this.

 

[etech]

Total wall depth 24 inches

The wall was a hell of lot more than "4 inches of concrete".


What would anyone possibly have to gain from lying about this?
Spreading seeds of discontent and false doubt about the government. A better question is "who would gain from those actions?"

 

[Cessna172]

It's hilarious how many people here actually even slightly doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Hmmm. Let's see:

- ATC radar shows a large, high-speed flying object disappear into the Pentagon
- People ON THE PLANE calling loved ones to tell them they're going down
- Plenty of EYEWITNESS REPORTS of the plane going into the building
- BLACK BOX (and probably lots of small debris) is found at the site

Is that not enough for you??? The fact that you can't spot aircraft debris from some crappy photos makes you totally ignore all of the above?? And I'm sure that if you do some more research, you'll find that there WAS plenty of debris found at the site--it's just in little tiny pieces. You're not going to be able to see those from some crappy photos posted on some crackpot's website. Just like the Pennsylvania crash, the plane was completely broken into tiny pieces. It happens ALL THE TIME.

Get some sense, people!

 

[burnedout]

Thanks etech. On top of things as usual.

I was attempting to prove why there was so little of the aircraft remaining in relation to the building damage.

<edit>the four inches I refered to were from the F-4 test, not the Pentagon BTW</edit>

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Allright you bone heads, look at this pic

Crash

This plane ROLLED off the runway a couple of years ago in Little Rock. Didn't smash into the ground at full speed, didn't hit a building going 600+. It slid off the end of the runway on landing. Look how much damage was done just by leaving the runway. And yet you still want to think that a plane hitting a concrete (for the most part) wall, full of fuel, going 300+ is just going to be out there in one big piece waiting for recovery?

 

[johnjohn320]

Y'know what, I have an aunt and uncle who live and work in Washington D.C. My uncle saw the plane hit. If any of you morons actually believe this sh!t, maybe you should call him and have a chat. See what he thinks of this conspiracy theory.

Jesus people are dumb.

 

[db]

PT Barnum said it best.

 

[Eli]

I have to admit, the site has some seemingly good points, but there is no doubt that a plane crashed into it.. I mean, come on.. lol.. Where were you on Sept. 11th? heh


Whoever was flying the plane had bad aim, is all. That's why there's not more damage.

 

[wolfsblood]

The person who wrote this thing up obviously didn't think things through all the way. If indeed a bomb went off instead of a plane hitting it then how would this theory explain all the people who died on the plane? Did they just magicly dissapear? What about the calls from loved ones on cell phones? This is all just a bunch of BS.

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< PT Barnum said it best. >>


db, what did Barnum say, I know I should remember, but my memory is shot Thanks for your time.

 

[Lucky]

<< For those of you that actually still believe the crap on that website, think about this. Four planes crashed. No one is disputing that, including the families of those onboard the plane that hit the Pentagon. If the plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, where did it crash? Common sense, people. >>




A simple but overlooked fact. Did those 100 or so people who died on that plane just mysteriously vanish all on the same day? As well as the plane?

Good post.

 

[Lucky]

where are the pieces of planes from the WTC?


dont have a picture handy but landing gear (?) was found intact on the ground in NYC.

 

[Soulflare]

<<

<< PT Barnum said it best. >>


db, what did Barnum say, I know I should remember, but my memory is shot Thanks for your time. >>



He said "there's a sucker born every minute", or something to that effect.

A lot of you are forgetting that the plane struck the ground first and then skipped once or twice
before plowing into the building. Just about every eye witness on 9-11 said that.

 

[Jokeram]

cnn had a crew reporting from the other end of the pentagon when it happened... there was a huge explosion and the reporter dived for cover before recovering and trying to find out what happened.

 

[Amused]

Oh great. The french have Dale Gribble type folks too.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Thanks Soulflare, your post jogged my memory, I appreciate it.

 

[ElFenix]

some of the biggest morons i have ever seen here have posted in this thread, actually believing that there was no wreckage. YOU CAN"T SEE TINY BITS OF TWISTED ALUMINUM AND STEEL FROM 200x200 PIXEL PHOTOS THAT COVER 500 FEET!. and in fact, you can see damage to the building along the length of the wingspan IN THE PHOTOS PROVIDED IN THE LINK. don't just read the damned idiotic caption, look at the photo yourself.

the walls of the empire state building are a lot thinner than the pentagon and the plane (a b-25 mitchell) that hit it was a lot smaller and traveling slower, so less energy was absorbed by the building. plus, the engines (2 of them) had a block, which is a solid piece of metal, and not very compressable. a jet turbine on the other hand is thousands of thin blades traveling at 10s of thousands RPMs. as soon as they are seperated from the hub they'll go flying all over the place and disintegrate. they're not particularly strong either, which is why a bird sucked into and engine can destroy the engine.

the walls of the WTC were also much thinner than the walls of the pentagon, and are designed to withstand pressure from up top but not a shearing force from a 600MPH airplane hitting it (the plane was going so fast that if the pilot had pulled up suddenly it would have snapped in two, as it was the wings might have torn themselves off at any point). the WTC was mostly office space, with small load bearing stringers on the outside and main load bearing columns in a cluster on the inside. office space is mostly open, and the walls are not load bearing, they're really only there for privacy, and they're reconfigurable. so parts of the plane could go right through, expending kinetic energy over a longer period of time than the plane that hit the pentagon, as the pentagon is a brick wall. and the plane that hit an apartment building? please, apartments are made of wood and sheetrock. if a 757 hit an apartment building there wouldn't be any of the building or the plane left. a cessna has no where near the energy that a 757 has. nor the fuel capacity to burn away a lot of the plane's debris.

and you saw the pictures of the WTC wreckage. two 110 story, 1000 foot tall building reduced to a scrap heap a not even 100 feet high.

really i have to wonder if the guy that made up this drivel is laughing at you sheep who are stupid enough to think its the truth.

 

[Valhalla1]

you know what else... flight 93 got shot down over that penn. field...

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_shoot_down.html

 

[kgraeme]

<<
lol lol lol.... ten times lol...
>>



To those who think this is funny, I want you to read the lists of people who died in the airplane and in the Pentagon.

I know people who work in the Pentagon. I have friends who saw the crash from cars and offices. This isn't funny at all. This is the definition of tragedy. Please do not make light of it.

 

[johnjohn320]

<< the walls of the WTC were also much thinner than the walls of the pentagon, and are designed to withstand pressure from up top but not a shearing force from a 600MPH airplane hitting it (the plane was going so fast that if the pilot had pulled up suddenly it would have snapped in two, as it was the wings might have torn themselves off at any point). >>



Not sure where you got that from, I heard something more like 300, and unless 757's are incredibly different in this respect from most other jet liners, it wouldn't snap in half from a climb @ 600MPH. But what do I know....anyway I agree with the rest of your post whole-heartedly, just that one little bit I have to question...

 

[burnedout]

Not sure where you got that from, I heard something more like 300, and unless 757's are incredibly different in this respect from most other jet liners, it wouldn't snap in half from a climb @ 600MPH. But what do I know....anyway I agree with the rest of your post whole-heartedly, just that one little bit I have to question...

Couple of weeks ago some engineers estimated the speeds of both aircraft that slammed into the WTC at 536 kts and 439 kts respectively. If I find a link, I'll post it.

Furthermore:

Security camera images show September 11 Pentagon crash

 

[wedi42]

look at this link

link

just saw this at fark
but i edited the link so its just the video, and much larger

still cant see the plane, just the explosion

edit- oops, burnedout beat me too it. however my link is a little different.