A plane crashed into a bulding and guess what, there was wreckage!!!

Okay, I am no expert but if a plane hits a building then there must be some type of visible wreckage right? The plane on 9/11 that hit the pentagon didn't leave any visible wreckage like you would have thought. However a plane in SAO PAULO, Brazil just crashed into a building and guess what? There was huge pieces of wreckage all over. Take a look at this story and notice the pics that go with it

www.cnn.com...


Let me know what you think of this!

Yeah.. this plane skidded across a runway and was slowing down...

Witnesses said the plane skidded across a major road during the city's rush hour.

no comparison what so ever to the events of Sept. 11th.

Except the intense heat from the fire..

Authorities have ruled out any chance that anyone on board the airliner survived. It will be difficult to recover the bodies because of the massive destruction caused by intense fire that officials said reached 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1000 C).

[edit on 18-7-2007 by elevatedone]

[edit on 18-7-2007 by elevatedone]

I think that the plane in Brazil slid off the end of a very wet runway at relatively low speed and hit a building of entirely different construction to the Pentagon.

I know what you're trying to say here but for the comparison to be remotely meaningful the circumstances have to have more in common than one plane and one building coming into some kind of contact with each other I'm afraid.

Yheh I thought about this when I was watching.

The point the above poster made is very valid - you cant compare the speed.

But guess what it crashed in to - A fuel depot!! lots of loverly aircraft disentergrating av fuel! Oh whats that I see, wreckage, Hmmm?

Edit to add: Okay the CNN link says nothing about a fuel depot, think it mentioned a fuel station (presumably auto gas)

But BBC is reporting

The plane skidded across a crowded road before it crashed into a fuel depot and warehouse and exploded.
See where and how the crash unfolded

[edit on 18/7/2007 by Now_Then]

Why do you people keep bring up this false information? There WAS wreckage at the pentagon and a simple search on google would show you pictures of it.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Why do you people keep bring up this false information? There WAS wreckage at the pentagon and a simple search on google would show you pictures of it.

Ah, but they are obviously fake pictures. They must be because there wasn't any wreckage ...... circular reasoning: the sign of a committed conspiracy theorist

I expected someone to say it was similar (it is only in the fire really), but i had really expected it to be something about the state of the building, ie collapsed/not collapsed.

For the conditions you want, you need a high speed crash, as well as the fire. I mean, with this one the vertical fin is still relatively intact.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Why do you people keep bring up this false information? There WAS wreckage at the pentagon and a simple search on google would show you pictures of it.

I will correct the above poster...

The minuscule amounts of photographed wreckage is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. there is only a small FRACTION of a plane and the few pictures we do get... such as:



Are in no way consistent with the official story...

LOOK at the above wreckage... NOW let me get this straight, that piece of fuselage is torn off in a fireball that consumed 99% of the rest of the plane but it is NOT scorched, burned, melted, vaporized, etc. and conveniently shows a piece that allows you to recognize it as an AA plane...

They told us the rest of the plane was VAPORIZED, but this MAGIC PIECE, this still shiny, brilliant piece of Al survives intact... 10" diameter wing spar... GONE.

Look at the available pics... One piece of fuselage, one rim, a power unit and NOTHING ELSE...

i was going to post the 1800 degrees down...however...everyone beat me to it.....

it just took off the roof of the gas station...didnt crash into it....

and this plane prolly hit at about 200....the one that hit the pentagon was doing double...and the pentagon was more solid.....

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Why do you people keep bring up this false information? There WAS wreckage at the pentagon and a simple search on google would show you pictures of it.

Couple of problems with your theory.

1. No official FBI or NTSB report matching the parts found to Flight 77.

2. Where were the parts found taken ?

3. The FBI took over 40,000 photos, where is the rest of the photos ? Their are no photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

All they would have to do to prove it was flight 77 is release the pic of the aircrafts tail, that went over the top...



Any sane person should see it suspicious that that pic has not been released.

These events are not comparible, a poilet doing weverything in thier power to avoid crashing will prodice a diffrent debre field as well and diffrent damage, and considering that the pentagon may be the most fortified structure on earth, there is no comparison.

Originally posted by TKainZero
These events are not comparible, a poilet doing weverything in thier power to avoid crashing will prodice a diffrent debre field as well and diffrent damage, and considering that the pentagon may be the most fortified structure on earth, there is no comparison.

Well you would think that the most fortified building (above ground) would fend off at least the left wing of an aircraft coming in at a 41 degree angle including the engine on said aircraft. Also physics would suggest said wing, as fuseloge decellerates, would break free of the craft and slap against the side of the Pentagon well down the left side of the entry point.

Originally posted by Pootie
I will correct the above poster...

The minuscule amounts of photographed wreckage is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. there is only a small FRACTION of a plane and the few pictures we do get... such as:
...
Look at the available pics... One piece of fuselage, one rim, a power unit and NOTHING ELSE...

blah, blah, blah. Wrong. You don't even have to leave this site to see picture upon picture of plane debris. I love how you pick one obscure photo of a small piece of aluminum and then throw out a bold faced lie that your photo is the only wreckage. LOL. Sadly enough, a good portion of people will accept your lie at face value because they're too lazy to research.

Start here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Start here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

^Catherder? His post was de-bunked as dis-info a long time ago. Is his post the extent of your research?

Where are all the wheels, we get a pic of one?
Where are the engines rotor shafts, casings, hubs, that should have survived?
Where is the counterweight?
Where is the pic of the aircrafts tail that went over the building?
Why is the damage not consistent with the known flight path from the black box and witness testimony?
If the plane flew so low why is there no damage to the lawn? Why is the lawn not covered in jet fuel?
Why did they 'photoshop' pictures of the event?

If you look hard you'll notice all the parts we get pics of are easily plantable.

Where is your proof that the pics we do have show parts from flight 77, or a Boeing at all?

[edit on 19/7/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
blah, blah, blah. Wrong. You don't even have to leave this site to see picture upon picture of plane debris. I love how you pick one obscure photo of a small piece of aluminum and then throw out a bold faced lie that your photo is the only wreckage. LOL. Sadly enough, a good portion of people will accept your lie at face value because they're too lazy to research.

Start here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok, I looked at that thread... All I see is A rim, A strut, A PART on an APU, the piece of skin I posted and a random shot of "green stuff"...

< 1% of a plane.

Care to show me the wing spars? The other NINE wheels? The other struts? the missing 99% of the fuselage skin? a single seat? Some luggage? The Ti engine parts? The tungsten counterbalances? ANY SIGNIFICANT wreckage?



[edit on 19-7-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by ANOK
^Catherder? His post was de-bunked as dis-info a long time ago.

can i see where it was debunked?

Why is the damage not consistent with the known flight path from the black box and witness testimony?

can i have linkage of witnesses saying it didnt dip and smash into the pentagon?

If the plane flew so low why is there no damage to the lawn? Why is the lawn not covered in jet fuel?

do you have an aireal photos of the pentagon lawn?..right after the attack?
why would the lawn be covered in jet fuel....it all got burnt....

Why did they 'photoshop' pictures of the event?

which photos?

If you look hard you'll notice all the parts we get pics of are easily plantable.

is everything there planted including the hole in the wall?

Where is your proof that the pics we do have show parts from flight 77, or a Boeing at all?

where's you're proof that the pics do not show parts?

this is for my own research....yes i believe a 757 hit the pentagon...but i know there's more than meets the eye.....

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I love how you pick one obscure photo of a small piece of aluminum and then throw out a bold faced lie that your photo is the only wreckage.

1. That photo is NOT obscure and is the largest/only piece of fuselage skin I have ever found on the net or anywhere. You find me more... I will happily wait.

2. I never said it was the only wreckage.

3. You call that piece small and I ask again, where are the rest of the unburned, unscratched, unscorched, torn pieces of the skin like this one? Surely this cannot be the only unburned piece of the skin to survive. Don't try to tell me a light pole ripped it off either as it is from the TOP of the plane.

4. Calling me a liar is rude.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
blah, blah, blah. Wrong. You don't even have to leave this site to see picture upon picture of plane debris.

No see, this is the same tactic thread to thread. What this poster and others of the same ilk now want you to mention is that this so-called evidence was "planted". Then he/she will come back with yet another reponse that starts with "blah, blah, blah". It's meant to derail threads.

The same old tired tactics.

Peace



[edit on 19-7-2007 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
can i see where it was debunked?

cassiopaea.netfirms.com...

can i have linkage of witnesses saying it didnt dip and smash into the pentagon?

Who needs witnesses when you have flight recorder data? So you ignore witnesses that contradict the official flightpath, but wholeheartedly believe the others?

do you have an aireal photos of the pentagon lawn?..right after the attack?
why would the lawn be covered in jet fuel....it all got burnt....

So if the fuel 'all got burnt' how did it manage to evaporate the plane?
There are lots of pics, go look, you can clearly see the lawn was not damaged

which photos?

Unfortunately the site I wanted to link too is no longer available.

911research.wtc7.net...
911review.org...
911research.wtc7.net...

is everything there planted including the hole in the wall?

Now you’re just being silly.

where's you're proof that the pics do not show parts?

I didn’t say the pics showed no parts. I just want to know where all the parts are that should have survived. If you’ve ever spent some time around aircraft you would understand.

this is for my own research....yes i believe a 757 hit the pentagon...but i know there's more than meets the eye.....

Oh and what is that then?