Just had a thought....i dont think i have ever seen on any of the footage an engine punching out through the other side of the the tower.

Am i wrong? does anyone have any footage showing this happening?

What was the box that they carried out of the pentagon? About the size of a missle....

You must be referring to the pictures of the guys carrying the blue tent. It wasnt a box they were carrying out of the Pentagon. Try looking at the pictures taken the next day, you will see blue tents all over the lawn. Im curious though, what kind of missile do you think will hit a building, cause
that much damage, and STILL be big enough to have to be carried by a bunch of people?

where is the impression on the wall from the wings slamming into the building?

Look up the building performance report for the Pentagon. There are some pics of the wing impact areas.

Did you plant this stuff yourself Swamp? Bad...

Thank you for confirming my earlier post.

Cash provided only a fraction of the evidence that's out there that makes the average Joe laugh at your 'so-called' evidence. But then there are those that stick together... they work together... for the agenda..

Cash provided a bunch of misinformed statements by misinformed people, not evidence.

It was stated earlier that the hijackers were dead, names were the wrong people etc... well if you remember, the FBIs website had these people's pics of them, the so-called terrorists. Some of them came out saying, I am he but I am not a terrorist and I am not dead.

And by Sept 20, the incorrect middle names and the incorrect pictures had been cleared up and the proper hijacker names were there.

Then you provide a link to a story about there being no Arab sounding names on the manifests, which links to a CNN that lists the names of the VICTIMS on the flights, not the flight manifests.

This website will also show you a pic of the aircraft engine that was outside the pentagon. And it doesn't look like the type they say it should be. What does that spell...

It spells amateurs who wouldnt know a Rolls Royce engine from a GE or Pratt Whitney. If it makes you feel better, the Rolls Royce company identified the engine as the type that was mounted on Flight 77.

As high and mighty as some may sound, in the end, they are just drinking the kool aid when it comes to the conspiracy theories.

Just had a thought....i dont think i have ever seen on any of the footage an engine punching out through the other side of the the tower.

Over 50 years before 9/11 a B25 bomber converted into transport
crashed into EMPIRE STATE BUILDING. Despite weighing only fraction
of a 767 (about 20,000 lbs vs 330,000) and at a fraction of the speed (500+ mph vs ~200 mph) one of the motors was able to punch through
the building and land on roof of adjacent building. This was despite fact
the exterior walls of ESB are quarried limestone several inches thick vs
steel latticework.

Somehow this gets over overlooked by the truthers......

The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.

The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Based on the evidence in hand at the end of the day, it wasn't necessary to spend the time putting together the wreckage looking for a mechanical reason. You had the phone calls, the radio transmissions, the radar tracks, and the witnesses on the ground.

Does that include the first plane to hit? Or better yet, when it was hijacked? Phone calls, radio transmissions, radar tracks, and witnesses on the ground?

Maybe radar tracks and witnesses on the ground, but that would also happen in an accident right?

If the things you list (phone calls and radio transmissions) where known at that early stage, then the whole OS is a farse. Especially flight 93. You know it and so do I. So, again, I'll ask. Was it impossible for at least 1 plane to be an accident on 9/11?

1000's of people....1000's of people saw planes...real planes...hit the towers. I suggest picking up the book "102 minutes" so you can read some firsthand accounts of people who saw the planes heading toward the towers while sitting inside at work...those who saw the side of a tower explode and spew jet fuel to the other tower...

Flight 93 and 587 are the coverups folks.

Remains, personal affects, video, ATM video, credit card receipts. pilot training and rent/electric and phone records in Fl. they were real folks.

They should get working on the memorial at 9/11 and real quick. I want to see something more than a hole next time I go back.

Originally posted by esdad71
1000's of people....1000's of people saw planes...real planes...hit the towers. I suggest picking up the book "102 minutes" so you can read some firsthand accounts of people who saw the planes heading toward the towers while sitting inside at work...those who saw the side of a tower explode and spew jet fuel to the other tower...

Are you saying this wouldn't happen in an accident? Do accidents become invisible until after they have crashed?

Flight 93 and 587 are the coverups folks.

Exactly my point. If there were calls from the first flight to be hijacked and also radar returns from said hijacking, someone royally screwed up in defending our country.