They are built strong for loads encountered during flight and landing, not for head on collisions. The wings are just big gas tanks with bundles of electrical wires surrounded by an aluminum can.Elamdri wrote:
Because people want to think that the planes that are responsible for their lives are as durable as tanks. No one wants to hear/believe that planes are fragile. Same applies to cars.usmarine2007 wrote:
There is not test that has ever been done to prove what will happen to an aircraft at that speed and angle of attack. Only theories, which are not good enough for me. I have been in aviation for a while now, and I have no idea why people think these planes are rock solid hunks of steal.JohnLeavitt wrote:
the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)
even with the supposed wreckage that was "found" it does not appear to be the wreckage of an Airliner. looks more like the wreckage of a small personal aircraft IMO...
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
Last edited by JohnLeavitt (2006-12-05 09:48:29)
Evidence and proof as well as laws of physics are often ignored when dealing with conspiracies.Kmarion wrote:
lol, SouthparkElamdri wrote:
Fen, you have to understand, there is a government conspiracy to make to the public believe that their is a government conspiracy about 9/11.
Ok, I watched your Video, now you watch mine.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Excuse me Mr.Smith do you mind if we place this landing gear on top of your desk for awhile.... no, no, nothing to worry about.. enjoy your lunch.JohnLeavitt wrote:
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
Key word you used was off the deep end.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-05 09:51:55)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
you do realize the imagine in that video does not depict a flying jet into that building?Kmarion wrote:
Excuse me Mr.Smith do you mind if we place this landing gear on top of your desk for awhile.... no, no, nothing to worry about.. enjoy your lunch.JohnLeavitt wrote:
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
Key word you used was off the deep end.
Do you have any idea how fast that plane was going? Also, what people fail to mention, that plane was flying outside of its envelope, which means structures were being weakened before the impact.Fen321 wrote:
you do realize the imagine in that video does not depict a flying jet into that building?Kmarion wrote:
Excuse me Mr.Smith do you mind if we place this landing gear on top of your desk for awhile.... no, no, nothing to worry about.. enjoy your lunch.JohnLeavitt wrote:
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
Key word you used was off the deep end.
Actually I even see the smoke coming out of one of the engines from when it hit the light pole.Fen321 wrote:
you do realize the imagine in that video does not depict a flying jet into that building?Kmarion wrote:
Excuse me Mr.Smith do you mind if we place this landing gear on top of your desk for awhile.... no, no, nothing to worry about.. enjoy your lunch.JohnLeavitt wrote:
and if you want to go off the deep end the area was closed for "construction" and the "wreckage" could have been planted before the "attack"...
Key word you used was off the deep end.
2:29 into it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
alright you guys are right it was a planeKmarion wrote:
Actually I even see the smoke coming out of one of the engines from when it hit the light pole.Fen321 wrote:
you do realize the imagine in that video does not depict a flying jet into that building?Kmarion wrote:
Excuse me Mr.Smith do you mind if we place this landing gear on top of your desk for awhile.... no, no, nothing to worry about.. enjoy your lunch.
Key word you used was off the deep end.
2:29 into it.
one question though...i know this is crazy but what about building 7?
Last edited by Fen321 (2006-12-05 11:30:40)
Generally with conspiracies theorist on this building they show one side of the building and not the huge whole in the back or the smoke coming from it. I can find it and show you.Fen321 wrote:
alright you guys are right it was a planeKmarion wrote:
Actually I even see the smoke coming out of one of the engines from when it hit the light pole.Fen321 wrote:
you do realize the imagine in that video does not depict a flying jet into that building?
2:29 into it.
one question though...i know this is crazy but what about building 7?
edit here is one..
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … wtc7_2.jpg
Takin damage from tower one
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … C7-1.0.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … llapse.jpg
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7fire1.jpg
More http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … -close.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7Smoke.jpg
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-05 11:41:15)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I keep getting Forbidden messages..Kmarion wrote:
Generally with conspiracies theorist on this building they show one side of the building and not the huge whole in the back or the smoke coming from it. I can find it and show you.Fen321 wrote:
alright you guys are right it was a planeKmarion wrote:
Actually I even see the smoke coming out of one of the engines from when it hit the light pole.
2:29 into it.
one question though...i know this is crazy but what about building 7?
edit here is one..
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … wtc7_2.jpg
Takin damage from tower one
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … C7-1.0.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … llapse.jpg
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7fire1.jpg
More http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … -close.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7Smoke.jpg
Bah.. i'll save them and post themFen321 wrote:
I keep getting Forbidden messages..Kmarion wrote:
Generally with conspiracies theorist on this building they show one side of the building and not the huge whole in the back or the smoke coming from it. I can find it and show you.Fen321 wrote:
alright you guys are right it was a plane
one question though...i know this is crazy but what about building 7?
edit here is one..
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … wtc7_2.jpg
Takin damage from tower one
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … C7-1.0.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … llapse.jpg
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7fire1.jpg
More http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … -close.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116 … 7Smoke.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fail
Indeed....usmarine2007 wrote:
Fail
Generally with conspiracies theorist on this building they show one side of the building and not the huge whole in the back or the smoke coming from it. I can find it and show you.
edit here is one..
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027688-L.jpg
Takin damage from tower one
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027696-L.jpg
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027702-L.jpg
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
More http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027719-L.jpg
edit here is one..
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027688-L.jpg
Takin damage from tower one
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027696-L.jpg
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027702-L.jpg
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
More http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027719-L.jpg
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-05 11:54:40)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
exactly... that is why i do not believe the theorys... but the whole issue smells fishy, like they knew it would happen and let it happen, kinda like peal harbor... so that america would attack.Kmarion wrote:
Evidence and proof as well as laws of physics are often ignored when dealing with conspiracies.Kmarion wrote:
lol, SouthparkElamdri wrote:
Fen, you have to understand, there is a government conspiracy to make to the public believe that their is a government conspiracy about 9/11.
Ok, I watched your Video, now you watch mine.
Last edited by JohnLeavitt (2006-12-05 12:00:11)
why hasn't any of the other video footage been released that was seized from the buildings surrounding the pentagon ? if its so black and white and a plane obviously hit the building why not release a video with a PLANE in it ? and that would settle the matter surely .
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … tagon.html
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/pen … _psyop.htm
FBI got there quick hmm. and Alex Jones points out a couple of things that seem sensible.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … tagon.html
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/pen … _psyop.htm
FBI got there quick hmm. and Alex Jones points out a couple of things that seem sensible.
Did you read anything in this thread? Look at frame 2:29 and tell me again there is no plane.kalisti wrote:
why hasn't any of the other video footage been released that was seized from the buildings surrounding the pentagon ? if its so black and white and a plane obviously hit the building why not release a video with a PLANE in it ? and that would settle the matter surely .
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … tagon.html
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/pen … _psyop.htm
FBI got there quick hmm. and Alex Jones points out a couple of things that seem sensible.
If by raging fires you mean one floor being on fire then yes I'll agree, but as for this raging fire (one floor) contributing to the collapse of the steel building that I'm not so sure of.Kmarion wrote:
Generally with conspiracies theorist on this building they show one side of the building and not the huge whole in the back or the smoke coming from it. I can find it and show you.
edit here is one..
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027688-L.jpg
The building did get damaged yes no question about that
Takin damage from tower one
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027696-L.jpg
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027702-L.jpg
The brunt of the damage though was taken by building 6 which is where debris is falling on to not 7
Fires raging from WTC7 on the right
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
More http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027706-L.jpg
http://tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/115027719-L.jpg
Honestly, this is the first building to collapse due to just "fire" that's kinda scary when you come to think about it. Sure it may sound kinda wacky but the footage of a symmetrically collapsing building falling down does not depict that of a fire induced collapse. Maybe I'm wrong...this could have all been due to fire, but why the inconclusive results with regards to explanation of its falling? Surely, there is no reason to hide info with regards to it.
Last edited by Fen321 (2006-12-05 12:17:19)
Timing is crucial with any investigation. As time goes by there is a less likely chance of a crime being solved.. damn don't you watch Law and order or CSI?..lolkalisti wrote:
FBI got there quick hmm. and Alex Jones points out a couple of things that seem sensible.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Burning for hours and hours..Fen321 wrote:
If by raging fires you mean one floor being on fire then yes I'll agree, but as for this raging fire (one floor) contributing to the collapse of the steel building that I'm not so sure of.
6:45 in try asking a Policeman that was there..
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-05 12:27:08)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
blurry black think yeah , doesnt really clear things up but if thats proof to you fine. btw i'm not trying to say that there was no plane , but why not release a vid with a plane CLEARLY in it not a blurry black thing . if you read my second link you may have got my point !
Being a patriot has NOTHING, I say again NOTHING to do with the government AT ALL. It's about your country, not whether you agree with the government of your country.JohnLeavitt wrote:
Ok, so WHERE IS THE FUCKING HUGE JET??? i have seen this video before. this is some major proof for the conspiracy theory ppl. so lets get the facts strait...
supposedly an airliner is driven into the Pentagon... but the video shows no jet...
the hole caused by the "jet" was only 16 feet wide (even though most jets are over 20 feet wide, plus the impact should make the hole bigger)
somehow the entire wing of the pentagon that got hit was closed for construction before the impact so there where minimal government fatalities ...
the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)
In My Opinion- the pentagon attack looks more like a cruise missile strike than a suicidal airplane. this has caused me to seriously doubt my government even though i had considered myself a patriot, i had joined the Navy Sea Cadets and was planing on joining the Naval Aviation before 9/11 but the so called attacks have caused me serious doubts... one may argue "what is the point of the government attacking their own country" but look at what this has gained the US government.
1) a massive increase in power through the patriot act and several others...
2) control of an oil rich country...
put together the scene just doesn't look right... make your own conclusions.
Were all the Nazis that blindly followed Hitler simply patriots?
Well, the video has one guy saying the building was on its "side" and burnt for a 3 hours before it collapsed i still don't buy that a fire caused it. Alright, ill buy that....but the kicker is if its that simple why the hell would they not simply put that as a reason, they only state that it received minor damage not enough to make it fall straight down.
Seriously...the reason I'm a skeptic is not because i have some kind of morbid obsession about this kind of thing and somehow wish that it was all done by some boggy man behind the scenes i just rather have a better account to the situation without there being fucks like oops i accidentally got rid of the evidence type of deal. Nor do i simply accept the owner of the building stating to "pull" the building and then watching it collapse after he says that.
Call me crazy, but eh i know I'm not I'm just waiting for a better inquiry into the incident before i come to grasp to what really happened as for now i guess its up in the air. Maybe I'll get a structural engineering degree someday and figure it until then who knows ...dun dun dun
Seriously...the reason I'm a skeptic is not because i have some kind of morbid obsession about this kind of thing and somehow wish that it was all done by some boggy man behind the scenes i just rather have a better account to the situation without there being fucks like oops i accidentally got rid of the evidence type of deal. Nor do i simply accept the owner of the building stating to "pull" the building and then watching it collapse after he says that.
Call me crazy, but eh i know I'm not I'm just waiting for a better inquiry into the incident before i come to grasp to what really happened as for now i guess its up in the air. Maybe I'll get a structural engineering degree someday and figure it until then who knows ...dun dun dun
I lost a good friend in the Pentagon that day... he was my suite mate for 2 years when I was in the USAF. Both he and his fiancee were killed.
Nice vid Kmarion. I've never seen that before, mostly because I never looked because I can't put any merit into the crack pot idea that our own government would perform such an act.
Nice vid Kmarion. I've never seen that before, mostly because I never looked because I can't put any merit into the crack pot idea that our own government would perform such an act.
First and foremost sorry to hear that.silo1180 wrote:
I lost a good friend in the Pentagon that day... he was my suite mate for 2 years when I was in the USAF. Both he and his fiancee were killed.
Neatly?Fen321 wrote:
Well, the video has one guy saying the building was on its "side" and burnt for a 3 hours before it collapsed i still don't buy that a fire caused it. Alright, ill buy that....but the kicker is if its that simple why the hell would they not simply put that as a reason, they only state that it received minor damage not enough to make it fall straight down.
Neatly?
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that this building collapsed due to this damage.
The WTC is the most studied building collapse in the history of mankind.Fen321 wrote:
Call me crazy, but eh i know I'm not I'm just waiting for a better inquiry into the incident before i come to grasp to what really happened as for now i guess its up in the air. Maybe I'll get a structural engineering degree someday and figure it until then who knows ...dun dun dun
Xbone Stormsurgezz