Johnny Pyro

What does this mean? America did this?

__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell

Willravel

The conclusion is objective. My conclusion based on the facts might be different than yours. In actuality, I still haven't drawn a conclusion yet, though I have my suspicians.

Could America have done this? Well...citizens of the United States might have been in on what happened, if that's what you mean. It's even possible that members of the government and intelligence organizations were in on it. It's more likely that they were incompetent, in my eyes. The only real 'evidence' that the government was in on it were the ridiculous 9/11 commission and FEMA reports. But, again, they might simply be signs of gross incompetence. This wouldn't be the first time the government was incompetent, and it wouldn't be the last.

crossova

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

Can you find the Boeing?

The_Jazz

Wow, what a mix of interesting questions with ones with absolutely no common sense.

Picture 3 (from the lawn of the damaged building) - no debris from the plane on the lawn? Wow, a plane moving 500 mph (or so) hit the ground floor and there's no debris from the plane on the lawn? Hmm, simple physics would seem to dictate that all the debris would keep traveling forward with the rest of the plane... Why would there be debris at the front of the building?

Picture 4 (showing sand and gravel being spread on the front lawn) - why would the contractor spread sand and gravel across the grass? It's standard procedure to do so with heavy machinery moving back and forth. It keeps the machinery from sinking into mud and muck. Cranes are expensive, and you want to make sure they don't tip over when they're lifting something. How is this evidence of a conspiracy?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

stevo

old and busted. What is this like the 18th thread on the "disappearing boeing" or something? What ever happend to the good old days of alien abductions and whatnot?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

The_Jazz

I agree. I pine for the days of lacidasily wondering who was on the grassy knoll and those rainy days spent by the fire discussing how the aliens built the Pyramids.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

But if a plane indeed hit the building why is the facade of thebuilding still intact. a Boeing 767 is over 150 feet wide and over 40 feet tall, why are there still windows still intact right where the plane allegedly struck the building.

The_Jazz

Because in the first picture the hole is hidden by the smoke and in the second the building has collapsed around it. Again, common sense.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

But the hole itself is small. Its like pushing a fist through the opening of a soda can. Some plane wreckage has to be somewhere, and the wings possibly did get clipped as it entered the building, but where did they go. If fire trucks are first on the scene then we should see those wings, landing gear, etc. on the outside of the building. right?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

The_Jazz

Again, simple physics would dictate that the wings would be sheared off, and if they didn't penetrate the hardened concrete, they aren't going to go backwards, which is what they would be doing if they ended up on the lawn. There's also the issue that if anything was flung backwards, the energy needed to change the trajectory 180 degrees is going to be high enough that any pieces are going to have to be necessarily tiny. Large pieces would have been torn completely apart.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

okay and the fact that they did not find any luggage, seats or other pieces of the fuselage is questionable. If they were able to retrieve and reassemble parts of flight 93 and flight 800 which both crashed at the bottom of the ocean, why could they not do that to any of the four planes that crashed on this day

The_Jazz

You've never taken a physics course, have you? Flight 800, according to the report, had a midair explosion of a fuel tank according to the official report. Regardless, all witnesses reported that the plane broke apart. That means that the fuselage was unpowered, or at least significantly underpowered to make no difference. The pieces immediately began to slow down as air resistance took effect. Terminal velocity at sea level is roughly 150 mph (I don't remember exactly), although it would be higher at a higher altitude. Regardless, their speed of roughly 450 mph (remember that Flight 800 was a heavier plane that was climbing at the time of the incident) would be reduced fairly quickly, although I don't think that they would slow to terminal velocity by time of impact. My point? The fact that they found bigger pieces of Flight 800 than the flight that hit the Pentagon is irrelevant because the two planes were moving at much different speeds, hit different surfaces and had different forces acting upon them.

Luggage and seats are going to burn pretty well at 2000 degrees, and I seem to recall the building burning for a couple of days. What part of your luggage is going to survive just 1 hour at 2000 degrees?

As far as the fuselage, remember that this is a plane running at full power doing maximum speed (estimated at 550 mph by the website you linked) hitting at an oblique angle. Basically the entire plane went from doing 550 mph to 0 mph in less space than it's body length. Given that the Pentagon was originally designed to withstand aerial attack, it's not surprising that it had hardened walls. The stresses involved would have shredded just about any material - and then you got the fuel detonation behind that.

Again, this is basic physics and there's no mystery here.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

Nope I've never taken a physics course. For a building that had temperatures of 2000 degrees roaring through a portion of it, I'm surprised that there wasn't further damage on the offices right next to the collapsed wall (as seen in the presentation on http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk).

The below link is a videoclip from CNN shows reporter Jamie Mcintyre, making some very surprising statements, "From my close up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon..."

http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/files/documents/Cnn.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

Also 2 of the named hijackers, still on the FBI list as perpetrators, named by the FBI and still on their list as those responsible, or Khaled al Mihdhar and Salem al-Hazmi are both Alive and well! Don't need a physics course for that one.

Also on www.letsroll911.org, they have a demonstration of the power of a airliner's jet engine and how it can push objects for a great distance.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/simulation.mpeg

They used this demonstration to pose the question as to why those wire spools still are sitting close to the building if a jet engine just roard past them and into the building.

Also the actual hole in the building, prior to it collapsing was about 14ft by 16 ft. Which is less than have the size of the plane's width and height.

The_Jazz

Given that you know for a fact that these are the same two individuals named by the FBI and not folks that share a common name, I'm sure that the FBI would love to talk to you to get a better idea of where these two guys are.

A quick google of my own names turns up the fact that I'm a former member of the New York Rangers and current playing for a minor league team in Canada but that I also recently published an anthropology textbook, that I died in 1879, 1936 and most recently in 1983 and entire site on wild hog hunting (actually my third cousin who I thought spelled his name differently but apparently doesn't) along with the actual information about the real me.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

The_Jazz

That demonstration is lots of fun, and it's even accurate. However, the assumption is that the engines approached from an angle that would effect the spools. The spools in question were never in play.

As far as the hole in the building, that's not surprising at all. The concrete is going to "give" as little as possible and try to make sure that the plane fits through the smallest hole possible. You could squeeze me through an entire keyhole if you applied enough force - or make an entire jetliner go through a 14' x 16' hole.

BTW - I revised my post #10 to make it clearer. I didn't like the way it read.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Redlemon

Let's have a quick recap, for those of you just joining this thread.
Carry on.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

The_Jazz

Wrong!

/shuffles off to the corner to self-reflect on apparent closemindedness

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Poppinjay

Howard Johnson is right!

Given the record of contact between the plane via cell phone calls from hijacked passengers, I'd have to guess if it was something other than a massive cover-up. And why would they go to the trouble of covering it up instead of just saying, "yeah, some guy with a truck fulla juice blowed it up"?

And why would Ted Olson sacrifice his wife?

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

El Pollo

Wow.
The_Jazz has some of the best arguments I think I've ever seen on Tilted Paranoia.
Nice work!

The_Jazz

I've got too many projects sitting on my desk that will take longer than I have left before I leave, so I get to revisit this. Yay, me! More wrongwrongwrong! as Redlemon so accurately put it.

Collapse is a result of structural damage, not fire. One may contribute to the other but not necessarily. The Pentagon apparently has an efficient fire suppression system that extenguished some of the smaller, peripheral fires. You'll note that there wasn't an absence of fire damage, which is not the same as the "further damage".

OK, let's look at a similar crash - well, similar in some respects. Flight 585 in 1991 in Colorado Springs was a 737 that flipped upside down and crashed at a near-verticle angle. The plane that hit the Pentagon hit at a near horizontal angle, and I think that we can discount the force of gravity as having any real role to play here other than trying to calculate 585's speed. The 737 was intact with engines at high speed as the pilots were trying to recover. I think that its safe to say that the plane was moving at least 550 mph when it impacted, and possibly higher. Acording to the NTSB, the impact left a crater 39 feet wide in a media (earth) softer than the hardened concrete of the Pentagon. It was also only 15 feet deep. The question then becomes the meansurement of the hole - typically craters are measured from high point to high point. There's also the physics of cratering, which basically means that the neighboring material is pushed to the point that it rebounds and turns into ejecta. With the Pentagon, there wouldn't be any true cratering because of the fundamental makeup of the building - it had rooms, so most would-be ejecta is going to flow in that direction. Fracturing would be contained by the room structure itself - you see that if you try to punch a honeycomb.

I now owe Mr. Domkowski an apology for telling him that I'd find a practical application for his class!

Oh, and to my FBI monitors who are obviously paying me to keep the lid on the real data on the crash, your check is late. Pay up before I start posting what actually happened on TFP Paranoia! You know, the truth that Bigfoot and Dracula, in conjuction with the Rand Corporation, piloted the plane into the building to try to get the Knights Templar and the Jews to stop exercising their absolute power over the media and Hollywood and put "Matlock" back on the air.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

Closemindedness my foot. Crossova is wrong. Period. He's guilty of what so many conspiracy fans are guilty of. They hear about some wild conspiracy that would be REALLY fun if it were true, so they believe it no matter what the evidence against it is.

Crossova has thusfar failed to answer the key question that should be posed about any conspiracy theory. WHY.

Why would anyone want to lie about an airplane hitting the pentagon instead of a truck bomb blowing up next to the pentagon. Whether it was a plane or a truck, the damage was done, and it was done by the same group. There's no advantage to making up information about an airplane hitting the pentagon, especially when 2 other airplanes are confirmed to have hit New York and another is confirmed through CVR to have been hijacked before it crashed. 3 airplanes used to attack the US are bad enough. Why do we need to lie to invent a fourth?

Plus, the height Crossova used for the Boeing is wrong. It's 44 feet from the ground to the tip of the tail. That's a hangar clearance height. The height from the ground to the top of the fuselage is 13.5 feet. That's much closer to the height of that hole. The tail is basically aluminum skin, with comparitively little weight. Up against hardened concrete, it most likely WOULD disintegrate.


Additionally, if the airplane really didn't hit the pentagon, then I would think American Airlines would be very interested because they presumably would want their airplane back. Someone stole it and hid it away somewhere. In other words, the airplane is missing. Where is it, if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

The_Jazz

Putting on my conspiracy hat for a moment - if I wanted to hide a plane full of people on it permanently, I'd crash it in the ocean, far enough offshore that none one would hear it or see the impact. The cell phone calls pretty much kill that possibility, though.

By the way, I did see the humor in Redlemon's post, though. And the unfortunate accuracy of it.

I need to do more actual work at work....

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

fastom

Yes, the cell phone calls. I always state my name before mom asks for it too.

DJ Happy

Ever tried making a cell phone call at 32,000 feet? Good luck getting a signal.

Why have big pieces of plane been found at the site of every other recorded plane crash, yet none were found at the Pentagon? Why does the only video footage of the crash at the Pentagon released by the FBI not show an airplane anywhere in sight?

The_Jazz

Actually I've done it, although by mistake. I forgot to turn off my cell phone on a flight to the West Coast a few years ago and had it ring somewhere near Denver. Cellular signals don't just move laterally - they also move vertically. In other words, the signal coverage doesn't look like a disk, it looks like a half-sphere. Since 32,000 feet is only 6 miles and cellular towers are on average 10 miles apart, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a decent cellular signal, especially in an area with good coverage like, say, the East Coast....

Oh, there's also the little tidbit that the TSA is considering allowing people to use cell phones on planes in flight as a matter of course since the problem has always been suspected interference with some instruments that now seems to be proven wrong. It's been big news in my circles since I'm a pretty heavy cell user when I'm on the road.

First of all, where are you getting your information that no big pieces were found at the site? There were lots of pieces found, some big, some small. In the Colorado Springs crash that I mentioned earlier, the largest piece found was roughly the size of a large suitcase, and that was for a plane that didn't suffer multiple impacts with hardened concrete walls (as the plane penetrated the various walls). If its because you haven't seen anyone reconstruct the plane, that's because no one has had any reason to try to reconstruct the plane since there's no mystery around why it crashed. The plane itself had no faults or issues - it performed exactly as designed. The NTSB spends a considerable amount of money reconstructing airframes to figure out why things happened and what surfaces moved in which directions in relation to nearby surfaces. It allows them to figure out what the stresses where.

As for what videos were released and what weren't, I honestly have no idea. There may be very good reasons why not - maybe you can see passengers' faces on some of them. I don't know, but I'm making a guess. Maybe they're being held to be used at trial. Given that the video in question was of the 1 frame per second variety and focused to 15' or so, it's not surprising that it doesn't show the plane in any great detail.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

The_Jazz

All I can do is point you to the transcripts of the calls and ask you to re-examine them. I think you'll find that it goes something like, "Hi Mom, it's George" or soemthing similar. Welcome to how I usually greet my mom on the phone when I call. As for full names, you must have personal call confused with 911 calls.

I welcome proof to the contrary.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

Yes Googling my own name brings up several people from various ethnic backgrounds. But if the FBI says The_Jazz is the person who flew this plane into the building and they show your photo on the news then I would be led to believe that you (The_Jazz) were dead and were the piloting that Boeing. But if it is confirmed that you are alive and well....then wouldn't that raise a question on the actual intelligence information that the FBI either had or presented to the public?


lol. yeah who says their entire name when speaking with their parents. "Hi, mom, its me Jack Bauer." You would think that after so many years mom would recognize your voice.

The transcript which was provided actually had one caller contacting his mother and stating his first and last name. When his mother asked what do the terrorist look like he did not answer. His reply was "You believe me, right?".

As for calls being made at 32000 feet, it is possible but they said at that time in 2001 the technology used in cellphones had a probability of something like a million to one. That information I believe was on the Loose Change documentary of 9/11.

I've watched plenty of television shows like Cops, 48hours and several Court TV shows and many 911 calls to the operators, people in distress did not give their full names even in their moments of distress.

To answer shakran's statement:
I do not have the answers to everything...I merely present questions that I would like to be answered, as many others have questions that would like to be answered as well.

Flight instructors said that the terrorist (those who allegedly flew into the Pentagon) who trained at their school were incompetent. It may be possible that they were able to actually control and maintain good control of the plane as it flew just barely over 100 feet off the ground and goind over 500mph into the Pentagon. Flying well below the Pentagon's missile defense's radar system.

So why lie about a 4th plane, I do not know. Why lie about any of the events that unfolded on that day. Why not release the video surveillance footage from the nearby hotel? why why why?

stevo

Have you checked out the other threads? they are over 6 pages long and would probably keep you entertained for a while. PM will, he will be glad to discuss this with you.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

crossova

Yes, I have read the other threads yesterday.

shakran

They didn't say incompetent, they said the terrorists didn't want to learn how to land. Well, if I'm planning on crashing a plane into a building, learning how to land on a runway won't do me much good either. I'll give you a secret about airplanes. It's all VERY easy until you try to land. Flying a jetliner is a piece of cake. Hell I did a story several years ago with the biggest bimbo reporter on our staff about airline flight simulators - the full motion ones that really feel like you're flying. She took off and flew around just fine. Crashed on landing, but the flying part was very easy.

DJ Happy

They are considering allowing it, but in order to do so there will have to be special equipment installed in the plane. A study was done to show that the chance of making a cell phone call at 32,000 feet is something like 0.006 to 1. Since I heard that I've tried 5 times in the last 2 months to do it, and I've not got a signal on any of those occasions. The last time I left my phone on for the rest of the flight and got a text message delivered about 3 seconds before we landed that was sent 2 hours previously.


I'm getting it from the news coverage and from subsequent reports. There were a few small pieces found, and by a few I mean about 2, and there was dispute that they could even have come from an airplane.

How do you know that the video in question was 1 frame per second if you you have no idea about the videos that were released? The video I'm talking about showed no plane at all. You see the outside of the Pentagon, and then you see an explosion, and nothing in between.

I'll try and locate the documentary I saw that on and link it here. Actually, it's the Loose Change documentary that Crossova talks about in an earlier post.

The_Jazz

Please tell me which of these planes were flying at 32,000 when the calls were placed. Given the long duration that all the planes spent close to ground level, I have to expect that if the phones in question were outside of the coverage area, they were soon back within it as they approached the ground on their attack runs. The Pentagon plane in particular flew at low alititudes for several mile. Given that's the plane we've focused exclusive attention on, I don't see why the 32,000 number is relevant considering that the plane took off from Dulles and the hijacking occurred roughly 15 to 20 minutes afterwards. That's not enough time for a 757 to climb to 32,000
feet under normal circumstances. The hijackers would have no reason to climb and every reason to dive.


Please see post #281 here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=281

That's a pretty telling picture. It's pretty obviously a piece of an American Airlines plane (most likely from the tail). There's lots of debris spread across the background closer to the building. Unless you're going to tell me that somone trucked in that piece, planted it on the lawn and called over the photographer to take a picture of it, I've got to call this particular detail debunked.



Sorry, my post was unclear - I meant that I have no idea why other videos haven't been released. I'm obviously familiar with the one that has been. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to make my points clearer.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

The comments I read did not speak about them not wanting to learn how to land. They said they were not good students and they felt they could not have been able to fly the airliners on 9/11. but that is just their own personal feelings.

crossova

The phone call at 32000 feet, i thought came from Flight 93.

That does look like a piece of the plane...very convenient. It reminds me of the indestructible passport of one of the alleged terrorist that was found about four blocks away from the WTC. They can find a booklet of paper that was in an area of 2000 degree temperature but can't find enough of the plane to reassemble from that crash.

The_Jazz

We haven't been discussing Flight 93. We've been discussing the particulars of Flight 77. The original post limited discussion to Flight 77, and that's what I've been basing my arguements upon. If you'd like to start discussing Flight 93 and the particulars of it, please post something to that effect and what you do or do not believe. Sorry, I just can't change gears like that.



Sorry that it's inconvenient to your theory, but unfortunately, there are pictures of identifiable airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn. The other parts in the foreground could be airplane parts as well, but I don't have the knowledge base to tell you what those other pieces may or may not be. It would be easy to imagine that there could be servo motor parts or hyrdaulic line laying around that neither of us can identify because we just don't know what it looks like. Based on that picture, I think that you've now got the impossible task of proving a lack of a plane when there's clear evidence of a plane crash at the site.

As far as your comment about the WTC crash, I really think that you need to go take some physics lessons since your ignorance of the subject is affecting your ability to understand the possibilities. That's not a slam or a flame, just a request that you educate yourself. As far as this particular fact, let me explain it -

In the crash of Flight 175, in some of the pictures you can pretty clearly see the nose of the plane emerging from the side opposite the strike site along with a large debris cloud followed by the flames of the ignition of the fuel. There's no reason to believe that Flight 11 behaved any differently. Let's assume that it was moving at the same speed as the Pentagon plane, which is 550 mph. The WTC was not designed to withstand the same stresses as the Pentagon, and the load-bearing structures were primarily focused on shifting the weight downwards with some ability for lateral movement for wind. These load bearing structures were pillars where the Pentagon uses entire walls as load bearers which includes the inner core of the building, which provided most of the support and caused the ulitmate failure of the structure. The facade of the WTC provided little structural support (it was less than a few inches thick) since that was the job of the steel skeleton. When the plane impacted, it sliced through the facade fairly easily and continued on through the structure where the main decelerator was the concrete floor and decking. As the plane plowed through building, portions were separated from the rest plane as they were scraped off, but most of them would not have lost all of their velocity, only some, until they struck the central core. The floors would have pretty quickly forced the plane into the most efficient shape possible to travel through the space (until encountering a new obstacle that is), although there certainly would have been some disintegration as various pieces were subjected to centrepetal forces and stationary object strikes. Most notably, it would have pushed other material ahead of it along with anything that decelerated slower than the rest of the plane.

The debris cloud that emerged on the other side of the building was probably made of pieces of the plane that did not encounter any structural supports along with any interior debris that was caught up with the plane and acelerated to roughly the same speed as the now-decelerating plane. The fireball would have been necessarily behind the nose of the plane since that's where all the fuel was. At least some of the hijackers had to be in the front of the plane (they were flying it, after all). They most likely had their passports on their persons. It's entirely possible that the passport traveled through the building as a part of the plane or debris cloud and then emerged on the other side. Given that 4 blocks in Lower Manhattan is about 1/4 mile, I have no problem seeing a passport traveling that distance if it managed to decelerate faster than the rest of the plane and become mixed with the debris field being pushed ahead of the plane. It's not the most likely outcome, but it's not impossible.

Edit - one other thing - the passport in question was not "undamaged". The pictures I've found show a pretty heavily damaged picture with about 30-40% missing.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

DEI37

Hey, looking through the Popular Mechanics stuff, I seen that one lady said she'd found the black box. So...what were the contents?

__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

shakran

I'm not entirely sure what this statement has to do with whether or not a plane crashed into the pentagon.


You're beginning to remind me of that guy in Politics a month or so ago who decided that everything in the Quran was accurate, period, and anything that wasn't in the Quran didn't exist no matter what evidence was there to support it.

You say there aren't any identifiable pieces of the plane. Someone provides you with a picture of an identifiable piece of a plane at the pentagon crash site. You deny the clear photographic evidence by telling us paper should burn.

As The_Jazz mentioned, that passport WAS damaged. Second, the world trade center itself was on fire for days, yet plenty of WTC papers were found. Despite having been in a building that had a "2,000 degree fire." Hell after the Challenger explosion divers found body parts and clothing from the astronauts. Same with Columbia. I guarantee that from a physics standpoint those were much more catastrophic events than the 9/11 plane crashes.


You have still failed to address the pertinent question here. Why would someone make an entire plane including its passengers and crew disappear, and try to cover it up by pretending to crash it into the Pentagon? How could they coordinate it so well with the terrorist attacks? I remind you that within one hour after the first plane crash, the FAA banned all new airplane takeoffs. Shortly after noon, only 3 hours later, all civillian air traffic was cleared from US skies. How exactly did they manage to hide the airplane? A plane that size can only land at a big airport. Don't you think someone might have noticed that a suspected hijack plane was landing on their runway? Or are you suggesting these conspirators built a super secret international airport somewhere underground and somehow made the plane invisible as they were flying to it? Assuming they did manage to build a facility that could land and hide a large jetliner, why did they bother to steal an airplane? If you have enough money to build an entire airport, you have enough money to BUY a 757. Why not just do that? Going to all this trouble to steal and hide an airplane simply doesn't make sense.

The_Jazz

Can you point me to the article? I did a quick check of the PM site, but I couldn't find it, but I'm probably using the wrong search criteria or something. I'm interested to hear which plane and which box (there are 2 on every plane, one that records cockpit broadcasts including pilot-to-pilot and one that records all the settings of the various surfaces and stresses on those surfaces). To the best of my knowledge, which is admittedly incomplete, I think that there's a full record from all 4 planes which means that all 8 boxes were recovered and decrypted.

Maybe the woman found the box and turned it over.

This is interesting.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

crossova

Contents has not been disclosed to the public.

Shakran & The_Jazz, in regards to the comment i made about Flight 93. I was referring to the phone calls made from passengers on the planes just before they crashed. When we had spoke about phone calls and whether it was possible to call from such high altitutdes, in my mind i thought you all were talking about that flight. The articles I saw and on the documentary I watched spoke about the probability of those passengers actually making a successful phone call at that altitude.

I did not know if the plane that struck the pentagon had passengers making phone calls at 32000 feet or just prior to their collision with the building.

The articles I read

I know the passport from the WTC hijacker was not the best condition, but the probabilities of that happening seemed to be a bit low. IMO.

Shakran, have you watched the Loose Change documentary, they give their own theory as to what may have happened to one plane (flight 93). Whose to say that something similar did not happen to Flight 77? On page 13 & 14 of the Northwood documents they give a scenario as to how to pretend an American plane could be destroyed. Im not going to go into the details, but here is a link to the document if you would like to read it. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf, here is asite that summarizes the 15page document - http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

When I started this thread I never said I knew where the plane actually, I was trying to get other people's perspective on the pictures from the site. I accomplished that.

As for the physics lessons, Im not in a rush to return to any science class. But if im ever on a hijacked plane i'll be sure to call you or The_Jazz from my cellphone. Hopefully, I'll get through.

Willravel

How did I miss this reanimated discussion? I'll be joining you all soo. Kudos to crossova, btw. Excelent points.