911=InsideJob said:
That picture has nothing to do with the wings folding up and going into the hole. Stop changing the subject. Explain to me how the wings would penetrate through the walls.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
9/11=insidejob...this is for you
- Thread starter lnvanry
- Start date
That picture has nothing to do with the wings folding up and going into the hole. Stop changing the subject. Explain to me how the wings would penetrate through the walls.
I still say there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but concrete evidence to suggest it did. Everything suggesting it didn't is circumstancial and theoretical.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.
Major General Stubblebine agrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine
Bush's former Chief Economist Morgan Reynold agrees:
-"Planes don't fold up like accordions do. They smash. They disintegrate. They break apart. The whole thing is stupid when reason is applied to the evidence," he says.
-"I defy anybody to fly a 767 at sea level at 550 mph. Sea level? Bull shit. Pardon my French," he says. "And then Mohammed Ata at the stick???he's going to hit a tower 200 feet wide. Wow!"
-"It's like this ragtag bunch of patsies that they pinned it on, the 19 Arab hijackers," he says, "it was physically impossible for them to perform these feats of flying."
-"You show me another aircraft crash vaporization in history," Reynolds says. "It's never happened. It will never happen."
Last but not least, Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor):
"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."- Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor)
Major General Stubblebine agrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine
Bush's former Chief Economist Morgan Reynold agrees:
-"Planes don't fold up like accordions do. They smash. They disintegrate. They break apart. The whole thing is stupid when reason is applied to the evidence," he says.
-"I defy anybody to fly a 767 at sea level at 550 mph. Sea level? Bull shit. Pardon my French," he says. "And then Mohammed Ata at the stick???he's going to hit a tower 200 feet wide. Wow!"
-"It's like this ragtag bunch of patsies that they pinned it on, the 19 Arab hijackers," he says, "it was physically impossible for them to perform these feats of flying."
-"You show me another aircraft crash vaporization in history," Reynolds says. "It's never happened. It will never happen."
Last but not least, Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor):
"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."- Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor)
911=InsideJob said:
I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.
oh god... this is too much... really ..
911=InsideJob said:
Ok, so we agree there is no physical evidence to suggest the wings would have penetrated the building. And they didn't decinagrate there's plenty of pics here to prove otherwise... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html. It makes more sense to me that fuselage, being the heaviest part of the plane and at the time loaded with 60 passengers plus luggage would be able to puncture through the building, but the wings would not have enough resistance to stay intact and would fold and follow the path of least resistance.
I'll get back to you on the pilots , but it seems to me your assuming he meant to hit the pentagon at that exact angle. I'm not so sure that's the case.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
This "conspiracy theorist" thinks that the no-757 theory is bogus, though he presents a lot of evidence on his page about the very strange tower 7 collapse.
This "conspiracy theorist" thinks that the no-757 theory is bogus, though he presents a lot of evidence on his page about the very strange tower 7 collapse.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
ge3k0 said:
Can you prove otherwise? Based on the facts presented.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
the nut said:
Yeah, I agree with that link because something obviously had to of hit the Pentagon. Evidence suggests a small military plane (which even people at the FAA thought it was based on it's menuevering). But look at that picture in the middle of that page, do you think a 757 could punch a circular hole in the wall? I don't.
911=InsideJob said:
Looking At the Big Picture
From facts contained above, we can all agree that:
The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.
The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?
Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building.
Look at the hole in the building
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
the nut-
Good measurements but you havnet acknoledged where the wings are in that wreckage. They arnt going to fold up and go inside that hole. You also havent talked about how such an advanced meneuver was pulled off by a terrible pilot in a 757. People in the FAA thought it was a military craft.
Good measurements but you havnet acknoledged where the wings are in that wreckage. They arnt going to fold up and go inside that hole. You also havent talked about how such an advanced meneuver was pulled off by a terrible pilot in a 757. People in the FAA thought it was a military craft.
But if it goes in sideways then they just collapse ontop and underneath, which I think a guy with no real experience would have probably been making a hard steer to correct his offshooting of the target?????911=InsideJob said:
I will admit the collapse of Tower 7 is the craziest shit ever. It looked like it was professionally demolished, and it wasn't even that close to the twin towers.
911=InsideJob said:
Again, give me proof that the wings are strong enough to penetrate a building... you can't. The fact of the matter is that the fuselage was the only part of plane heavy enough to push through the walls, the wings and tail are going to give way suck through with the fuselage. If you would really like me to post all the pictures of wreckage proving it was a 757, i will. But it's gonna have to wait for tommorow. This twice now that youve said that the wings wont fold up and go through. Post some physics stating they won't then it becomes a valid argument, but don't just claim it without evidence. I posted a page explaining how the plane would funnel through, if you can't disprove that, then drop that argument. Once you can accpet this, i'll get to the pilot.
How do we know that these planes had all been repaired with Duct Tape and just by coincidence crashed all on the same day and in strategic places on accident?
Someone explain tower 7. That shit has got to be fake. I can't believe it fell like that....
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Like I've always said, the wings of a 757 COULD NOT HAVE folded up and went into that little ass hole. Not possible. It was a small military craft.
About WTC 7, definetly brought down by explosives. My understanding is that that building contained documents which prove govnt corruption and things like that. (ie links to Enron, billions of dollars missing, ect...)
About WTC 7, definetly brought down by explosives. My understanding is that that building contained documents which prove govnt corruption and things like that. (ie links to Enron, billions of dollars missing, ect...)
911=InsideJob said:
In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.
Google ls-dyna purdue simulator... Purdue did a simulation on it.
911, you have yet to show something saying the wings were powerful and heavy enough to penetrate the building.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
FishOrCutBait said:
1) Dylan Avery wasn't the guy who came up with all this stuff. All he did was simply put it together in documentary form. Mainstream and credible souces.
2) They can't kill Avery, he's too well known you could say.
Why would the govnt do this?
According to several former govnt officals Bush wanted to go to war for oil and was looking for a way. Also to role back civil liberties.
How do they get thousands of people to keep quite?
They don't need that many people involved, not even close. They jsut need a small number of people who have signed documents saying they wont talk. That's how covert ops works.
Further Reading:
Doesnt explain why people heard explosions or why it collapsed so fast. Also doesnt explain why WTC 7 collasped when it had zero jet fuel in it.
The Nut- I still don't understand your question. I think that a small military craft hit the Pentagon and I've already provided the proof showing that it's impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon under those circumstances (i.e. terrible pilot, impossible meneuvering, ect..)
