737 Wheel recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by neverknwo
 


Sorry but there is no way a 737 hit the Pentagon. The CIA may have used or put some 737 Parts on the Missle they used but there is no way a 737 hit the Pentagon. If the Pentagon/FBI/CIA/FAA had not been so quick to pick up and hit all wreckage we would have found what was really used to bomb the Pentagon.

I have seen all the pictures and video and heard the witnesses and many news stories; I know what I know and in my book it is just a question of who all in the Bush Administration was involved in the 9-11 Attacks.

I realize it won't matter, so many tracks were covered on 9-11, so many traitorous big shots...like H.K. . None of it is going to matter much now, the damage is done and this country is going to be more worried about Milk, Gas and having a job than chasing after a bunch of big shots with all the money, legal and political help they need.

Frankly, even if a 737 hit the Pentagon, it was still a False Flag Inside Job and like so many other lies this country and the world have been built on, it will be twisted and turned to serve those in power while the rest of us are cattle and sheep who talk alot. Now "They" have their bets covered for the next 4 years as Clinton Obama and McCain are all bought and paid for andf frankly, those who are really in control of this country and the world out class, out think and out gun the rest of us in everything but numbers and as it always goes with a bunch of hungry mouths, they will eat and take what they get.




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
You show people photos
You show people video
You show people eye witness reports
You could even stand some people right in front of something.

But they still believe what they want to believe.


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...







Look how similar these aircraft are. Now imagine seeing one scream past you at 350 -400 MPH. Quick which one is the 737? Which one is the 767?

Eyewitness accounts are known to be one of the worst forms of id’s. People see what they want to see. Are not sure what they see. Even trained people are not always reliable.


[edit on 2-4-2008 by dismanrc]

[edit on 2-4-2008 by dismanrc]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dismanrc
You show people photos
You show people video
You show people eye witness reports
You could even stand some people right in front of something.

But they still believe what they want to believe.

You show people photos of a small amount of debri.
You show a video we have all aready seen and considered
You show people eye witness reports con and we have seen witnesses who say pro
If I had been there, I would be in jail right now for posting photos of evidence tampering.

We believe what we believe based upon our consdioeration of the evidence and as I said, even if it was a 737, I know without a doubt that 9-11 was a Inside Job.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I still want to know what happened to that 737 that went missing in Africa in '00 over a supposed 'ownership dispute'. Then I saw and read somewhere of a stripped out 737 with four or five 500 gallon fuel tanks. From now on I am going to document, save, document save. I think I saw that on Rense.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I have never gone for the whole conspiracy thing for the pentagon, but had a feeling that something was not right, now if im right something here is or has been deliberately changed and i need you all to check it out for me?

If im right it is going to knock this thread on its ass, so please can you check?

Ok the video on the link the OP posted at the end shows the video from the security booth? that was the only footage released am i right?

So how come this is the first time after seeing this footage dozens of times that there is a plane in the video? and i mean an honest to god whole AA plane? wasn't there the last time i saw this, i even just checked on you tube again and it is different, go see for yourselves, i think someone is trying to play a game, and is it coincidence that that Ron Paul fella is advertised right after?

Please check and let me know , or everyone know, talk about in your face manipulation if i am..
AZZ



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
That's just it azzlin. Every time you look there is the 'new improved' evidence of an actual plane hitting. I thought the first vids months back showed some kind of non identifiable blurr! And God I've tried to look for those first initial pics and its like they've been wiped from the face of the earth.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I remember that day like it was yesterday as many others do, but the eyewitness accounts are very compelling to at least say that, a plane was there, I even recall people being interviewed at the pentagon that said they saw a military looking plane with foreign markings, this was someone that was being interviewed by the local radio station here in Washington ,WTOP, in the wake of the explosion, they had a whole wealth of interviews that day I believe, if you could find the transcripts they might be helpful and add to some of the other information, that information sent a chill when the witness said that, I was working downtown DC and had to deal with the pandomonium of getting out of the city for fear of the unknown as all of the events played out, because in addition that witness reporting what they did, other crazy things like there was a car bomb at the state department, there were fires on the national mall among others which I do not believe were even true.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
The next evening on 9/12/01 a hydrogen truck went kapowie down in the valley at Alcoa. I was asleep. Distance about 3 miles on a high bluff rise. I could see the white blinding flash 'thru my closed eyelids' along with the corresponding report of the explosion. Press release said it was a tanker that didn't set off main holding tank. And that was that. Coincidence, sure, could be, but just a lot of weird stuff. I really wish a sweeping review of 9/11 could be conducted, but the lack of physical evidence would probably make it inconclusive. A ringer is the hysterical woman screaming 'that was not an AA airliner! as she was bugging out.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Chad Brooks (PentaCon) also thot it was a 737, and a UNITED Airlines one using a paintjob they didn't even use until 2004. So a 737 rashed into the Pentagon? Hmmm... As long as you think it impacted, I won't argue the point.

However...

Quick! Look at this pic for 2 seconds only, no research.




Was that a 737 or a 757? Report accurately!

I'll post the answer later.

JPM - sounds like a nifty smoking gun picture. Hope you can find it again (hint - Google image search).

Others - thanks for the stars.


That pic is a 727:
a) the link gives the game away
b) the engine in the tail



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I dont understand why a missile would have been shot at the pentagon, These would be the people involved in any conspiracy. Why would you blow yourself up. I dont buy it
However I do wonder if explosives could be involve with the buildings, just because of building 7 and the fact I have not seen a good explanation for it falling



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Its pretty much common knowledge that those planes that hit the twin towers were not 757. Wing span was too big, body was too wide, and that screaming woman one one video said so.

[Edit]
A 757 didnt hit the pentagon either. THere was a clean hole, no loose jet fuel, and no wing damage. Not even a broken _



[edit on 2-4-2008 by shiman]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by want2believe
I dont understand why a missile would have been shot at the pentagon, These would be the people involved in any conspiracy. Why would you blow yourself up. I dont buy it
However I do wonder if explosives could be involve with the buildings, just because of building 7 and the fact I have not seen a good explanation for it falling


The area they blew up has been under construction and repair since the 1999. The area was relatively empty.

Building 7 was professionaly demolished. You saw the speed it fell. That was virtual free fall. Only accomplished with professional demolition.


I wonder what company did the demolition job... Who saw the demo trucks outside the twin towers? What was their logo?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 281011
 


281011, it seems evident that non-pilots have difficulty identifing aircraft types. Happens all the time, and what is in a quite obvious way, with that B727 picture!!

A B737 and B757 have obvious similarities, from a distance. Especially since AA only flies the B737-800 model, which is stretched, not as long as a B757 of course. AND the engines don't have the 'squashed' look as you see on the B737-300, -400 and -500. (those are the SNECMA engines....it's the cowling underneath that is 'squashed' to provide extra clearance in crosswind landings...the engines are quite round!).

WW



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Whoa, wait. The pentagon? I just reat the title, and it said the pentagon? No way. That is impossible. A missle hit that. A 737 wouldve left massive wreckage to more than one side of the building.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
Its pretty much common knowledge that those planes that hit the twin towers were not 757.


You are right. It was 767's that hit the WTC. The 757's hit the pentagon and Shanksville, PA.

Read the Purdue University study on how a fast moving, hollow projectile disintegrates when it hits something.

After 7 years it amazes me how this stuff comes up. Occams razor is all you need to know. An event of this magnitude does not need a conpiracy of the same size to occur. We were lazy and not paying attention and some bad guys got one by us. Its not the hard to accept.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 281011
 


281011, it seems evident that non-pilots have difficulty identifing aircraft types. Happens all the time, and what is in a quite obvious way, with that B727 picture!!

A B737 and B757 have obvious similarities, from a distance. Especially since AA only flies the B737-800 model, which is stretched, not as long as a B757 of course. AND the engines don't have the 'squashed' look as you see on the B737-300, -400 and -500. (those are the SNECMA engines....it's the cowling underneath that is 'squashed' to provide extra clearance in crosswind landings...the engines are quite round!).

WW



The engine is still the CFM-56 which is a joint venture between GE and Snecma of France. The CFM56-7B is the current variant found on -800 aircraft.

The flattened nose cowl was do to ground clearance requirements and not crosswind landings. The new 737NG has longer gear so they have gone to a rounder cowl.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rapacious
 


Thanks, Rapacious for bringing that up.

Many people don't seem to understand the forces involved with kinetic energy....and using past airliner crashes as 'proof' is like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges.

While I respect those who wish to provide evidence to refute the 'official' 9/11 theory, it is important to not allow bad information into the discusssions.

I don't say 'bad information' in order to impugn anyone here, I say it because good people can repeat info that is wrong from the get-go, and not realize it.

There are so many mis-conceptions out there...and I don't proclaim to know the truth...but I have experience of teaching people to fly, and flying myself...and I still hear so much nonsense being 'spouted' by supposed 'experts' who don't know the first thing about aviation!!! (not here on ATS, but in many media outlets...)

Some 'experts' think that a simple dip into an information datatbase will teach them enough to be an 'expert'...just doesn't work that way. One must have practical experience as well.

I have 30+ years of practical experience.

There is much that cannot be communicated in a forum such as this, it is a fact of life...or a fact of the current 'communication age' we curretnly live in.

I once dated a doctor...an MD...and I was appalled, at first, by a motto told to me....."See one, Do one, Teach one". (this was in reference to how Doctors teach Doctors)

When I teach, I want to know that my student has all of the skills I can possibly impart, including my confidence that the student has the reasoning ability to think ahead, and utilize those skills.

I have seen many, many licensed pilots who don't have those skills, but they weren't my students, they just wished to rent airplanes. If they can fly, in a one-hour check out session, then they can rent the airplane. I sign off on their ability to fly, not their ability to reason.....because I can't predict what someone will do in the future....

WW



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Its a 727.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
As to, a B737 wheel at the Pentagon.....

Could not a B757 Nosewheel be mis-indentified as a B737 Main wheel?

See, this is where the discussion goes off the track, or 'jumps the shark'....

Speculation, mis-information, and just plain mis-understanding leads to these conspiracies. Facts matter, not rampant speculations!

I remain open to new ideas, but when I see obvious errors, then I need to point them out. Lest they promulgate, and become 'fact'.....

The Main Gear on a B757 and B767 each have FOUR wheels, and tires, of course! The 'truck' is a tandem, two per side. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the photos.

A B737 Main Gear has only TWO wheels on each, left and right.

Of course, all commercial jets have two nosewheels, this is partly to keep the 'footprint' spread out, as I've mentioned before, as it pertains to the load-bearing capacity of the airport ramps...but, it also means if one tire fails, then the other will at least carry the weight until maintenance can replace the blown tire....

WW



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by azzllin
I have never gone for the whole conspiracy thing for the pentagon, but had a feeling that something was not right, now if im right something here is or has been deliberately changed and i need you all to check it out for me?

If im right it is going to knock this thread on its ass, so please can you check?

Ok the video on the link the OP posted at the end shows the video from the security booth? that was the only footage released am i right?

So how come this is the first time after seeing this footage dozens of times that there is a plane in the video? and i mean an honest to god whole AA plane? wasn't there the last time i saw this, i even just checked on you tube again and it is different, go see for yourselves, i think someone is trying to play a game, and is it coincidence that that Ron Paul fella is advertised right after?

Please check and let me know , or everyone know, talk about in your face manipulation if i am..
AZZ


Hi

Can you post the link that you are referring too as I've saw the 'original' released video segment, so I'd be keen to see what your seeing?

Thanks





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join