Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: 9/11 Debate (Read 20346 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from CV and mad panic beha...
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #240 –
Aircraft wings carry far more fuel than in the tanks / belly of the fuselage.  They are also light and flexible.  Impact with a structure like the Pentagon would have sheared them off within half a second .... 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #241 –
Quote from: Mav on
But Karen, if it was a cruise missile, surely the damage would have been far greater given those things have, you know, explosives?
Sorry Mav, don't mean to poke the bear, but how much explosives do you think you need to punch a hole that big in to one of the most fortified buildings in the world...? Cruise missile would do the job I'm guessing...

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #242 –
Quote from: capcom on
Aircraft wings carry far more fuel than in the tanks / belly of the fuselage.  They are also light and flexible.  Impact with a structure like the Pentagon would have sheared them off within half a second .... 
....and then they'd be sucked into the hole from which the explosion is coming out of?

They would shear off with barely breaking a window?

Where are they in the link i posted?

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #243 –
It would also cause a lot more damage. But I'm guessing Karen will tell us the bunker-busting warhead was replaced with a whoopee-cushion or something like that ...

Can't wait for him to fight the video from GTC with a cartoon featuring the roadrunner watching an ACME missile heading towards the Pentagon with a defeated looking Wile E Coyote riding it all the way.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #244 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton on
This animation gives a pretty good summation of what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
OK, now look at the photos i showed you and compare that to the video.

Does the hole in the pictures represent the 'major damage' of the video?

Before it collapsed due to fire, the hole/damage was minute and it was exactly that, a round hole. There was no 'major damage' to the side as your video suggested.

Also in your video a lot of the wreckage is taken close up and could be from any wreckage.
I've heard someone argue that a part (possibly the engine) is from a completely different plane......but that area is out of my depth.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #245 –


The pentagon is 77 feet high and according to Karens link, the damage was 75 feet wide.

Do i need to get out the ruler? I think someone is compensating for something.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #246 –
Quote from: kruddler on
....and then they'd be sucked into the hole from which the explosion is coming out of?

They would shear off with barely breaking a window?

Where are they in the link i posted?
Have to check, I remember watching all this live after a night shift, did anyone else? Not validating my arguements. Just wondering...

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #247 –
Karen, the mystery is this:

The Govt showed amazing attention to detail by knocking down various light-poles, generators & the like which couldn't have been taken out by a single missile. They even had the foresight to move aircraft debris including heavy engines onto the site. Hell, they even moved in some body parts in flight crew clothing for people to find. (Heavens knows what Pentagon staff made of all of those preparations - maybe they thought a movie was being shot there ...)

BUT, they forgot to bring the wings! What the hell? And why didn't they shape the damage to fit the assumptions of the armchair aircrash investigator? Damn, it was Gomer Pyle all over again. You can never give him any job or he'll stuff it up ...

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #248 –
Quote from: Klingus on
Have to check, I remember watching all this live after a night shift, did anyone else? Not validating my arguements. Just wondering...
I remember flicking channels and see a burning building, watched a video (vhs lol) and after that flicking through the channels again and the same thing being on every channel, and seeing one come down. Was in shock

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #249 –
Tenerife aiport 1977.  Runway collision.  One about to leave the tarmac the other one on  the taxiway. 563 dead.  KLM / Pan Am.  Negligent relative speed in terms of a jet. 

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #250 –
Quote from: Mav on
Karen, the mystery is this:

The Govt showed amazing attention to detail by knocking down various light-poles, generators & the like which couldn't have been taken out by a single missile. They even had the foresight to move aircraft debris including heavy engines onto the site. Hell, they even moved in some body parts in flight crew clothing for people to find. (Heavens knows what Pentagon staff made of all of those preparations - maybe they thought a movie was being shot there ...)

BUT, they forgot to bring the wings! What the hell? And why didn't they shape the damage to fit the assumptions of the armchair aircrash investigator? Damn, it was Gomer Pyle all over again. You can never give him any job or he'll stuff it up ...
Why didn't the damage fit your experts decryption?
He was either lying or incompetent, so I'll treat everything he says in the same fashion.

You rely on hearsay and computer models (which don't add up either) I'll rely on actual pictures from the event. All that debris and body parts and what not and engines (no, 1 engine, possibly from a different plane and could be from any location as there are no wide shots showing it) all seem to vanish from the wide shots.

I never said they put them there later, but I don't know where they were at the time.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #251 –
Klingus, as Trump said, "'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening". Don't let them know you saw anything or they'll have to tie you to the conspiracy.

Yep, I watched the whole thing. It's difficult to square what I saw with the conspiracy theory. All of this talk about the towers falling down quickly doesn't gell with my recollections. It was slow motion stuff and I watched it unfold over a long time while texting the GF who was inconveniently in Egypt at the time.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #252 –
Quote from: capcom on
Tenerife aiport 1977.  Runway collision.  One about to leave the tarmac the other one on  the taxiway. 563 dead.  KLM / Pan Am.  Negligent relative speed in terms of a jet. 


I like this one, the guy standing in the engine... that engine is about the size of the whole planes hole in the pentagon...
And there were 2 engines.....and the rest of the plane.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #253 –
I specifically said RELATIVE speed of the jets.  This "discussion" is becoming way too bizarre.

Re: 9/11 Debate

Reply #254 –
Quote from: capcom on
I specifically said RELATIVE speed of the jets.  This "discussion" is becoming way too bizarre.
I thought you were trying to point out the amount of debris from a plane crash in relation to what we see at the pentagon.

I thought the size of the engines painted a good picture of damage we come expect to see.

You tell me, are you satisfied with the damage at the pentagon consistent with the size of the aircraft...including its wings