thanks!!!

Thanks? This page is retarded, the writer doesn't even realize that a plane flying at a low altitude (such as flight 77) CAN'T BE PICKED UP BY RADAR!

Also there was wreckage in the building and we've all seen it, and you can't just mangle that stuff into a building as fast as the pictures were taken, both from afar and from government//media sources.

Sincerely,
no signature

But, to answer the question this thread asks in its title, and I'll say it slow because if people are still wondering, they can't be too fast: A PLANE.

There is no mystery to this, just people trying to create one. Don't fall for the stuff.

I thought we killed this topic b4 lol. I think that a plane did hit it. But under remote control of a CIA ops

Where were the wings?
They still haven't found the wings.

I would love to believe it all was real.
But come on.
When stuff don't sound right, it isn't.


Somebody find me a picture that shows where the wings are and I will believe it was the plane they said it was.

DC

Hehe.
It makes me laught the fact that this guy who wrote that article, knows nothing about aviation, yet he decides to try to look like he does.

An aircraft's transponder is a device which interacts with the ATC's Radars, to provide them with your Altitude, Speed, Heading and Position information, nothing else.

The transponder has 5 operation modes: OFF, SBY (Standby), ON, ALT, Test. There is an aditional button for Squawk Ident. If the transponder is not on, it is pretty obvious it won't appear on a Normal ATC Radar, unless the aircraft is flying the radar's minimum altitude. There is a war technique, most used by Helicopters, it consists of flying Low to avoid being detected by the radar, it works with any aircraft type.


However, I am pretty sure that the aircraft was visible the entire time on the radars, the only stage where it wasn't visible was on the final stages of the flight, seconds about to crash. For the aircraft to dissapear from the radar, it must fly low enough, and flight 77 didn't that, or else they would had never reached the crash site as fast as they did.

Cheers, and BTW, Freemason, do you remember me? The guy from the chat the other day

I've never had much doubt about the proposition that this event was wilfully manipulated by the authorities so that the conspiracy-theories around it could be made ridiculous in the hope that theories concerning the other aircraft were similarly discredited as the rantings of a lunatic fringe. (and many were -remember that awful French book)
There can be little to suggest that any explanation other than a REAL plane REALLY hitting the REAL Pentagon with REAL wings and people has any substance much less coherence or cogency.

The answer to the question of what hit the Pentagon is a Boeing 757 flight #77. There were "hundreds" of eye witness to this. People saw "that" plane hit the building.

But like UFO siteings, seems eye witness accounts, photos, time lines can all be twisted to make people believe it's not real or did not happen the way it happened. I guess if you give it enough time and mix up the facts you can "debunk" just about anything.

There will always be the unexplained elements of such disasters: the jury's still out on whether or not Nero really did burn Rome down.
In common with -I am sure -many fellow-posters I trawled through the truck-bombs, the robot F-16, the El Al lookalike, a little of Meyssen's drivel-book etc etc.
I'm not claiming 100% faith in teh liteal truth of Flight 77 having hit the Pentagon; but I'd go for 99.9.
Ther are numerous cogent explanations of the "missing" debris on the net; there is the obvious question "where did 77 go, then?"; there is a great deal of recorded eye-witness reaction, and so forth. There was also the abrupt volte-face by the usual suspects on the Conspiracy Circus when the Govt (somewhat belatedly) produced more convincing images (e.g. of the damage having gone well beyond the "first ring". I think it was realised that the conspiracy was elsewhere and this may well have been a set-up.
Whether it was broad in aim -to ridicule any speculation of conspiracy behind 9-11; specific - e.g to throw the light off the Israeli involvement, white vans, Art students etc - or a combination, is unclear.
Cetyainly it wrked -when people who wouldn't know a transponder from a rice-cooker realised that transponders merely make things easier -they don't cause planes to vanish when they're turned off; when it was realised that there was mor extensive damage, when fools or stooges went beyond credible conspiracy to drivel, people dropped the topic and conspiracy-theorising suffered.
If then, it wasn't a plane -we need to shown good evidence.
On balance, I think the Govt's approach (as I claim there is one) worked. One has only to look at ATS to see how all the issues of the day have gone and even more recent issues e.g. Wellstone, or the riddle of Chandra Levy, have disappeared from the thoughts of many. Often because many postings are mere Ctrl+ V's of other sites which themselves offer second-snippets from relatively mainstream sources: orthodox and unorthodox. When one relies on third-hand sources one is very much at the mercy of the "first-hand": who themselevs are all often the unthinking cut'n'pasters of news agencies and a few commercial "real truth" sites.
Flight 77 would be a good topic if facts/evidence and original new thinking are offered.

..the plane is. the "party-line" was that the bulk of the remaining wreckage (fuselage) was actually INSIDE the Pentagon- sealed off from prying eyes. It may be a fib - but I'm aware of no convincing refutation.

...k...whatever, believe what you want, its certainly your right. And yes I have seen the security cam stills.

Still think it was a plane plowing into the Pentagon...exactly WHY and HOW it did it however is something I have many questions about.

...and I assume you yourself have seen what a Boeing crashing into a building of the same structure as the Pentagon looks like too, first hand,...given your 'facts' are also based on pics and theories found on the web...

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by alien]

Could you specify, or add links for the security stills to which you make reference, Tigeris?
Although I am sure you are not guilty of this, the tone of your posting might be taken to suggest an attitude of "I believe what I see, I disbelieve what I cannot see": reminiscent of the more benighted reactions to empirical science in centuries gone by.
Also, is it "a plane" you dispute. or a "Boeing airliner"?

TigeriS, to clear up your point about the security camera.

The reason the plane could not be seen was because the frame rate of the camera wasn't quick enough to catch it.

As for wreckage, the momentum of the plane would carry it inside the original hole, thus containg it within the building.

Your point about them lying about the bodies found in the reckage is a bit ridiculous don't you think,LOL. No more comment necessary.

PS. Where did Flight 77 go then ? the Bermuda Triangle LOL

Thanks, alien - as I said, while I'm sure there was wilful stage-managing here the pictures (admittedly released at a well-chosen time); the eye-witness accounts BEFORE any pictorial evidence was available (not to mention the one about where did the Boeing go?) are the hard evidence ( I do not say "proof") and one woudl look for similarly hard evidence from the posecution.