Originally posted by tracer
After looking at the one large piece of wreckage over and over, the piece that always seems to be in photos, it looks to new and shiny to have been in wreck..almost like it dont belong there?

Exactly. If the impact and explosion were such that the rest of the aircraft was vapourised (even the engines!), it does seem somewhat 'out of place' to say the least!

Originally posted by SabbyJ

Originally posted by tracer
After looking at the one large piece of wreckage over and over, the piece that always seems to be in photos, it looks to new and shiny to have been in wreck..almost like it dont belong there?

Exactly. If the impact and explosion were such that the rest of the aircraft was vapourised (even the engines!), it does seem somewhat 'out of place' to say the least!

Did y'all miss the part about the plane's approach before impact where it clipped light poles & overhead street signs?
It *did* nearly skim one of the busiest highways in the country, you know.
The large piece of debris was further back from the building, and it was determined to have likely been sheared off when the plane clipped a structure before impact. Of course it's shiny, it wasn't part of the fire.

-B.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
The only thing I would add to this discussion is for those who dont know that much about crash sciens, please research.

Take the time to look at pictures, videos of other crash's. You will notice that there are large amounts of debrie in the area. This is blatently obvious. But at the pentigon, there is very little.

Blah...


Volumnous mostly aluminum object strikes heavy, dense mostly concrete object at over 500 mph... one word... smithereens!


Let's turn this discussion on it's head...

Okay, many of the government people you are accusing of creating a catastrophe and covering it up by saying a great big passenger jet hit the building are not completely stupid people. Now, that being said, if they wanted to fake a 757 hitting a government building, don't you think they'd make damn sure identifiable wreckage was left over? I mean really, if you're going to blow up the side of a building, and use a cover story, you're going to plan the cover story... right?

So there you have it... the #1 reason this is not a plot and cover up, there is not overwhelming physical evidence.

Instead, you have exactly what you'd expect when a light-weight (for the size) aluminum object slams into a very solid object at high speed... very little.

>>> don't you think they'd make damn sure identifiable wreckage was left over?

Yup, like the piece of aluminum on the front lawn, and the front landing gear that showed up, prolly a few others.

>>> I mean really, if you're going to blow up the side of a building, and use a cover story, you're going to plan the cover story... right?

Plans can only cover so many eventualities. Something always gives somewhere. The key is to lose evidence as fast as possible, so that even if there is doubt, it remains just that.

remember these guys are politicians; I try not to make the fatal mistake of assuming their intelligence....

100 ton minimum t4 aluminum object, structurally sound, especially the wings strikes heavy, dense mostly concrete object at over 500 mph, enough kinetic energy to destroy at least half the structure; instead all we get is a 2 meter hole?

Whatever did happen, it's history now, time to focus on
what's coming down the pipe and surviving that one!

btw, many new pics of pent wreckage have shown up on the net, people are trying to correlate those pieces with the corresponding aircraft type.

I have 2 comments on this.

1) As William said, everyone is accusing some super secret group of people of plotting through our own government to do these attacks. That takes a lot of intelligence. But then those same people making the accusation are assuming that this brilliant group of secretive people are so stupid that they did this and left dozens of "holes" for laymen with no military experience to prove that it was them. Give me a break. If you're going to believe in a conspiracy at least give it the credibility you yourself have hyped it with.

2) I know nothing about the technical aspects of missiles. Neither do the very vast majority of people here. One person here does. Skadi. Judging by her previous experience and knowledge of such things, I would say that she is far more of an authority on it than any of us, and as such I would be far more inclined to believe her word on this issue.

Thanks Djarums.

A missile has a warhead. A warhead is explosive. A warhead on a missile would not have left neat little holes punched in the building. The warhead would have exploed within the building and incinerated entire floors. A warhead big enough to do THAT to the pentagon, traveling at such slow speeds that thousands of witnesses on the groud were capable of seeing it and thinking it a plane...... it would have had to have been a very BIG and VERY powerful warhead.

Sorry, but this is one conspiracy that this paranoid out to get me conspiracy theorist does not buy. For one, as I have said a thousand times, look at the pictures. YOU CANT SEE SHIOT IN THEM. The lighting, distance, ect, just because you dont see a plane in the fuzzy pics doesnt mean its not there! I didnt see a tail of a plane hanging out of the WTC, that doesnt mean there was no #ing plane hitting either wtc!

To anyone who has been to the pentagon, who has seen how the pentagon is structured, and actually has some experience in missiles, this whole "a missile hit the pentagon" bull# is just that: bull#. Even the most hardcore 9/11 conspiracy researcher who is serious about this # finds this a joke.

Look at the crash site in Pennsylvania, for gods sake. Do you see the remains of flight 93 there? No, what you see is a big black holle with basically nothing in it. That doesnt mean a plane didnt disintigrate there.

As far as missiles...I have seen footage of some of the smart bombs that travel thru blocks of concrete....leaving neat little holes until they reach the target and explode!

The pentagon video shows the explosion OUTSIDE the building. Thus if a missile hit it, it wouldnt be punching cute little holes inside the building. Yes, there are smart bombs, slow traveling that you can see them fly. They also pack quite a punch. But it is obvious from what hit the pentagon the object that hit it was HUGE. The pentagon itself is HUGE. The missile would have penetrated a few layers, then exploded within the building, taking out and incinerating floor after floor, there would have been no holes left to look at.

It would have exploded INSIDE, thus, the fireball would not have shout outside like that.

A boeing 757 with real live people hit the pentagon. Thier bodies were found at the site by firemen. You cant stuff a passenger load into a missile guys.

Flight 77, in order for a missile to replace it, you have to hijack the whole flight, make it disappear without anyone noticing youre making it disappear, and then kill all the wtinesses, send thier bodies to the pentagon charred and full of jet fuel in time for rescue teams to find them........

No, this French guy really gives smart researchers a bad name. This theory gets more and more ridiculous.

The real dirt is in the blatant lack of action, ignoring the standard proceedures that have often been used, the absecnece of fighter jets, the suspicous behavior of the plane before it hit dc..........and the fact that the pentagon, equipped with a battery of surface to air missiles.......did not even make half an attempt to put these defenses in place, let alone evacuate the building.

Granted skadi... but I have seen some pics of the Pentagon showing small neat holes what caused them?

Airplane wreckage and flying debris. Heavier, mroe heat resistant parts of the aircraft, like the engines, and other non aluminum parts. If it was missiles, there would be huge blast areas, with the suckers we got in our arsenal.

Ive been looking for the link with the pics....and the ones I saw were not made by debris and wreckage! If I can locate the link I will surely post it.

Hey skadi, just out of curiousity, how fast does a missile fly? I know there's lots of different types, but I guess what I'm wondering would be whatever kind of missile the conspiracy theorists here believe hit the pentagon... how fast would that go? Would we hear it and see it? Like a plane? For some reason I doubt it could be confused with a plane, but you'd know better that I would...

You all are still going around about this?!

What kind of missle penetrates "specially" designed BOMB BLAST PROOF re-enforced Military Engineered defence based walls you all may ask.

I'll let the thought linger for another second.....

.....

.....

Ok, maybe three, because thats how long it would take for a "Bunker buster" style weapon to penetrate the worlds most potentially ultra secure Top Government Facility.

Think about it, come on folks I know you can figure this out...

Be wary that many photoshop edited pictures also surface around.

All the pictures I have seen from mutilple sources look pretty run of the mill for what youd expect for a plane crash. Only a ballistics expert can truly identify the source of a hole, thus, some blithering idiot frenchman and his attempt to be somehwat of an expert on something he probably has little to nothing knowldge on.....

Im not an expert of planes, but I do have experience with missiles and from what I have seen. I see no evidence of a missile explosion.

Logic takes care of the rest of this arguement. Eyewitnesses say they saw and HEARD as plane. Several of the eyewitnesses were military who have been around aircraft and missiles thier whole lives.

I will take thier owrd over the word of some moron with too much time on his hands and a book to sell. There is nothing logical about this arguement.

I do not see a plane in those photos because I do not expect to see a recognizable plane. I have seen and been to the pentagon. Its solid. Anything hitting it at that speed is gonna get turned to dust. period.

>>> What kind of missle penetrates "specially" designed BOMB BLAST PROOF re-enforced Military Engineered defence based walls you all may ask.

I'll let the thought linger for another second.....

uhhh... u mean the built in the forties steel and concrete building is supposed to be super-duper strong and tough? I thought that part was under ground?

a missle didn't hit the pentagon..

although a plane, probably smaller than a 757 did... All they have to do to clear up this question is release one of the hundreds of pictures that they have or did confiscate on that day....

Well, if we allwant to get technical.

Not ever part of planes these days are Aluminum. Many aircraft manufacturers will use Titanium, for the underbellies and engine houseing.

So, it is feasable that the titanium of the plane penetrated the "40's" crap steel and concrete Pentagon facilty. No offence meant by stressing crap. Just being silly. Anyways, I still want to know how what ever it was that penetrated the walls manages to maintain a nearly perfectly round hole as it blasted through the structure?

Sure Titanium could do it, but don't forget, the wreckage would have been everywere. And highly unlikely would it get sucked into the hole. So where did it go, where are the bodies, the scorched lawn and scorched marks on the walls from the fuel? Not where they should be, thats for sure.

Too many unknowns in the offical story.
I would actually like to see a research program started in the Research Forum.

Everyone is forgetting the recent efforts to bolster the walls strengh in that area of the pentagon too.

Furthermore, I am still not aware that a jet crash would totally obliterate all evidence of bodies and wings etc. No one has answered this question yet.

The other issue here is that a missile or similar craft has a higher velocity than a jet potentially and certainly at that altitude.

It may have been a smaller plane that was remote controlled but my source tells me it was a type of missile. This projectile was retrofitted to look like a plane. A missile does not need a warhead either, it can be outfitted to be a dud. In fact this is common in war games is it not?

Has anyone ever heard about the radar signature for this event? It must be out there but I am sure that it would not be released to the public.

[Edited on 31-10-2003 by THENEO]

Um, NEO........

Despie your gruesome and bloody tastes.....the pres actually has some class.

When was the last time you have seen newspaper photos showing dead corpses in a plane crash?

There were no photos of dead bodies in the wtc either.

Its called censorship out of good taste. No one really wants to look at half mutilated burned charred bodies strewn everywhere.

Thus, no bodies in the photos. And, you still cant get it through your head that the photos were taken at a decent distance. So, small objects like human body parts arennt going to show up.

I still want someone to show me a media article or story that shows humans remains after a disaster.