Planemad.net wrote:

Nethius GREATTT LINKS omg.. i did have consipracies.. but with that link you send me i really am not that interested anymore... but the video is still nuts. and more imporantly... why and what made the GINORMOUS perfect circle?

I would have to say that a building that is 1368 ft hight would almost definately be stronger than one 77' ft high and yet the planes managed to bring the towers down to the ground yet on the Pentagon a plane left just a nice little hole, a hole smaller than the size of the plane?

The plane is 13'6" high. and the Pentagon is 77' high... yet the damage is localised? however the planes managed to bring down the towers? yet not the pentagon?

The windows of the pentagon are blast-resistant. Nearly 2" thick. Right that would answer why a plane weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles never damaged the windows... It is a pity the towers weren't built out of that 2 inch glass?

Wasn't the pentagon specifically designed so that any damage to it would only affect one part, one fifth of it, that's why it's in five segments that are only five floors high? And surely something tall would fall down, when something low wouldn't? How could something that covers, i think,the largest land area in the world, be demolished totally?

I am not saying the plane should have destroyed the Pentagon as a whole but this plane would have caused more damage than it did?

Even the surrounding ground was virtually unmarked.. I hate these conpiracy things as there is never a solution other than an individual belief.

Something hit the pentagon that day but in my opinion it was not a 757. The damage was too localised for it to be an Aircraft of that size.

the buildings are designed differently

i also think its important to note that the planes banked into the Towers, the first one hitting it almost vertically so that they would hit more levels and the other hitting at about 45 degrees.

Also the size of the hole has been put at a great deal more than the conspiracy theorists would claim.



no it means that something would have to physically have gone through the windows or the structure near the windows would have had to have been damaged for the windows to break. The shockwave wouldn't have been enough to blow the windows out.

When it comes down to it, i do think there are a lot more questions than the official version answers: and yes, the differences between the effects of the impact on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon do raise a lot of those. But i think the questions we should be asking are about the identity of the hijackers, and their motives and training.

We don't get to hear much now about the hijackers here in the UK, as for their training many of them were trained... I believe down Alabama, I know a guy in my line of work was linked to training some of them but I never heard anything else about it, he was all over the papers linked at the time to training them or at least they went through his school.

you guys just dont get it --there is more evidence of demoition charges than there is of any hi-jackers--8 of the original 20 "alleged" hi-jackers have been confirmed alive and the other 12 were probably already dead--please search the web yourself and link to any hard evidence of the planes being hi-jacked--the magical passport and phony cell phone calls dont cut it either--dated airport surveilance video would be nice--audio from the black boxes consisting of arabic or an english/arabic accent would work--how about the official passenger lists? show us the arab names--the military was responsible for 9/11 and bush and his entire administration was complicent--rudy guliani and the company demo inc are also guilty--take your heads out of the sand NOW
ask yourself-- cui bono? --who benefitted?
bush sr and bin laden sr are chairmen in the carlyle group who profitted billions in defense contracts--cheney's buddies at halliburton are the next big "winners" and we cannot forget "silverstein enterprises" who possibly profitted the most--the pipeline that was forced through afg will profit for years to come and now we are stealing everything iraq is worth--i forgot to mention how the american mainstream media is also complicent and equally traitorous--like the mob the govt whacks us on the head with a bat and wants us to "pay" for protection--wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wake-up? You are delusional.

I do not know about the Pentagon, that video was quite insightful, I am doubtful that a plane flew into it, as planes makes massive, massive, massive, explosions.

However, the twin towers I do not believe a conspiracy. That was an act of horrific terroism.

ok so you think they were "seperate" events?
it WAS an act of horrific terrorism only it was carried out by the us military in accordance with the bush administration--there is no other way it would have been possible--a real terrorist would not have passed up the chance to hit indian point and decimate the east coast for tens of thousands of years--there was an ulterior motive to the wtc and pentagon event and decimating the east coast was "not" one of them--it is ridiculous to speculate that these events were not related and since the pentagon incident occurred 48 min "after" the second plane hit indicating an inside job it is therefore conclusive beyond any resonable doubt that thw wtc attack was also an inside job--fuel fire from jet wreckage and the crumbling of a building from the "alledged" fire will not smolder for 5 weeks in any firefighting or engineering book-please proove me wrong or wake up --think there wasnt a cover-up search the name "bill manning" of firefighter engineering magazine and read his opinion

Sadly, most people today will believe anything their media tells them. 'the official story' that comes out within 24-48 hours and then repeated time and time and time again.

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think for himself... Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."



Two images are attached to this thread. One is of the crashed pentagon. The other is of the hole in one of the twin towers. Please use the woman standing in the hole as a reference to it's size. Note that this picture was taken before the blazing hot fuel that melts steal brought the towers down.

You guys are right, there is NO doubt that a 747 hit the pentagon. Amazingly, in light of this new evidence, we now see that more then half the plane disintegrated right before hitting the pentagon.

a 747 didn't hit the pentagon

*Pedant's corner* Not a 747, no; a 757; which is a fair bit smaller.

I was waiting for that reply and I wish I had money on who it would come from.. lol

True. May you provide a link that shows the difference in the size of the planes? This way we may compare them.

This is a very good one for info on every type of airliner there is now or ever was:

http://www.airliners.net/info/

Just scroll down to whatever it is you're looking for.

for the record Minoru Yamasaki did state on the record that the towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts from the biggest plane of the time the 707--some people try to say that its too bad that he didnt figure it would be a 767 that can hold 200 people and this "size" difference was somehow the determining factor in the collapse of the towers--well when you pay attention to the facts you realize that the fuel storage was larger on a 707 not only that but it weighs less and has a "higher" top speed actually rendering its "potential" energy greater than that of a 767--the buildings were demolished using shape charges--search "louie cachiolli nyfd" and you can listen to him explain what he saw--no one anywhere can challenge that testimony!

please dont try and distract from the truth by misquoting alex jones's video--its context has been detailed and facts remain that he(Minoru Yamasaki) did say that

Shape charges?


Please take the time to identify the individual's involved in doing such a deed.
Oh, no "individual's? Of course, they have no name, just the name Government.

something tells me the fellow didn't consider the fuel storage whatsoever

he was designing it simply from a if a plane its the building, what kind of damage would it do? and if you look at the WTC towers, they survived the plane impacts, it was the fires and top floor collapse that brought them down.

No fuel was considered? So do you think he designed it to withstand the impact of a 707 propelled into the towers by a gigantic slingshot?
Or another possibility- he thought that the fuel tanks of a 707 would survive the impact undamaged!
Or he didn't know that jets use fuel for flying, or that fuel has a tendency to start fires!

ok---it starts with the Loizeaux family and their company CDI or controlled demolition inc --these are the same traitors that murdered children in the oklahoma murrah building in conjunction with the ATF using demolition charges in occupied buildings for christs sake!--using the same MO as in oklahoma(which is where the documents concerning the waco massacre were being stored) the wtc towers were targeted in order to get rid of evidence-- link
the most intriguing from the link above being the evidence of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Comapy, Goldman Sachs.
although there were other reasons and others involved which helped the evil murderers--larry silverstein had much to gain and the fact that he purchased the entire wtc complex just two months prior to the attack(at a time when the buildings were considered a rotting corpse and financial disaster due to the previous attacks and the need for "demolition" and rebuild) as well as re-insuring them with special terrorist clauses indicating his involvement link
--marvin bush was head of security at the wtc complex and could have easily supplied access to whoever he wanted coincidentally his two year contract ended on sept 11,01 link
--at this point we can bring in bush sr and the bin ladens who both are chairman on the board of directors for the carlyle group and have profitted millions from the war in defense contracts --coincidentally they had a meeting and were in each others presence as the tragedy unfolded link
--next is cheney whose oil buddies at halliburton also have profitted untold millions in contract work concerning the oil pipeline forced through afg link
--we cannot forget rudy guilianni who was a renowned prosecuter and should know a bit about preserving evidence immediately ship out the wtc steel for "recycling" in china also profitting millions in his new terrorism preparedness company guiliani and partnerslink
lets not forget the FAA and NORAD who both committed treasonous acts linklink2
--also complicent is FOX , CNN , national geographic and many others for either directly suppressing the truth or manufacturing false evidence and repeating it over and over again--hows that for a start?

Translation: "I can't agree that shape charges were used unless I know the names of the guys who planted them. If you can't tell me their names, then that means they weren't used"
Analogy - Detective Smith says, "Well, the deceased man has two hundred stab wounds in his back, but I don't know the name of who might have done it, so it's not a murder"

it was designed to survive the impact of a plane, it did just that

ie the force of a plane slamming into the building

Cool video.
Really makes you think

From what I heard, it was calculated on the basis that any plane that would be that low would be coming in to land, so wouldn't have much fuel aboard. Sounds dumb, but that's what i read.

Or taking off.. Planes would obviously be that low just after take off?

That was a flaw in the thinking; i think they were probably thinking that planes taking off would start gaining height straightaway so that they wouldn't be low enough to have to worry about. Obviously they were wrong, as the A300 that crashed into Queens showed ...

It was never in question whether or not the towers could withstand the impacts. In fact, as it was mentioned already, they were designed to withstand multiple 707 hits. The towers were over engineered, they were a mesh of steel beams. If anything that plane would just be a pencil going through a mesh, only doing minor damage to the overall structure. In fact, there was more pressure on the building made by winds, then the impact.

The official story was that the towers fell due to the excessive heat of burning fuel. Steel melts at 2700 Fahrenheit. Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at 1800. Because of debris, carpeting, furniture and lack of oxygen, the fire was probably at 1200-1300. Large portion of fuel exploded outside of the buildings. Building was exposed to air on 3 sides and cooled quickly. As many of us may remember, the smoke coming out of the buildings was very dark, almost black. That's a sign that the fire wasn't burning propertly. So how could it bring the buildings down?

And what about building 7? You are welcome to read chapter 5 of the FEMA. They say that the collapse was caused by fire. All they had to do is walk up to Silverstein and ask him 2 questions, and they would have the answer. You call that an investigation?

Lets not forget that the fall of the towers defies the laws of gravity. The south tower fell in 10.4 and north in 8.1 seconds. Now according to the law of falling bodies, the fastest speed an object can fall from the top of the tower to the bottom, in a total vacuum is 9.2 seconds. And even if you ignore all this, please give me an example of another steel structured building going down due to fire.


Now back to the pentagon. Why was the most protected building in the country if not the world, only release 5 still framed images of the attack, with a different date and time? First they claimed that they had not video of the crash. That's until people were saying that there was just a truck that blew up in front of the building. So they released the 5 frames. Are we to believe that thats the only evidence that they have? In a building that has cameras in every hall? In a city that has the most surveillance in the world? Can you please find out WHO released the video? It was released anonymously why? Because no one wants to be convicted by being tied to this scam.

so you are saying that the collapse of the north tower defied physics? what are you getting at? God was involved?

Not just the north tower. Modern high tech explosives and nuclear explosives can both create a vacuum. Since no radiation was detected, that counts the nuclear bomb out. Modern explosives could cause the crystallization of the building materials while creating a vacuum that could pull down the building at a faster than normal speed, and leave a residue of extremely high temperatures. Have we forgotten the NASA's temperature readings taken aprox. a week after 9/11 that showed the temperatures still being over 1000 degrees F? What about the seismic readings that showed the collapse of both towers, and building 7, to be consistant with a demolition.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...ic=40205&st=120
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/bombs.htm

history offers many clues as well--ever hear this famous quuote?--
keep one eye on the past and lose one on the future
keep no eyes on the past and you lose both eyes on the future

a missle, no way, the terrorists dont have the capabilities to launch a missle that far,

and no, the plane crashed into the building and then incinerated.

only one problem dude, the pentagon is designed to withstand a bomb, its walls can sure take a beating, thats why there was minimal damage to the pentagon, because when you crash a lightwhieght material plane into a reinforced bomb resistant building, the damage will be minimal

So you say that 127,520lb(when empty) isn't alot at that speed? How do you explain the pentagon releasing only 5 stills from a camera? Can you plz find out who exactly released them?

Doesnt what sunofone is saying sounds really similiar to the whole star wars plot The phantom menace? Where the supposedly good senator creates this fictional threat and then is the one who gets it under control and ends up creating a republic that controls the galaxy. In the movie no one realized what was going on until it was too late. I dont beleive sunfone 100% but i also dont disagree with him 100%. What he is saying is possible and there is a good amount of evidence to support it.

it couldnt have been a missle, but it was most definatly an airliner, remember people,

-the planes are made out of lightwheight materials

-The Pentagon is made to be bomb resistant (in simpler words its one damn strong building)

-The plane was LOADED with fuel

-upon impact , I imagine the wings would have broken off and/or incinerated, the fuselage would have made the hole in the building, and there was a smaller hole in the building That could have been made by an engine.

yep, its not neccessarily the whieght that will count, but the material and speed

for example

-take a guy that wheighs one ton, and launch him out of a cannon at a wall

-take a one ton hunk of metal and launch it at a wall

what will cause more damage? the hunk of metal

Are you saying that a fat guy hit the pentagon?

Hmmm I don't think he has actually read any of the postings to suggest this was not a plane that hit the pentagon? although a fat guy would be the reason for minimal damage sustained after the impact?

its a recurring theme in hollywood--look at "the incredibles" where the villian was creating crisis that he would then swoop in and solve the dilema and take all the glory--also the movie "ants" where the "soldier ants" collaborate with "termites"(terrorists) who then carry out terrorist attacks on "the colony" so that the general of the soldiers has a pretext to start war and uses it to "take over" the colony in a martial law type fashion --honestly there are many movies but these are the first that come to mind considering they are childrens movies--a thread started on the subject would be a great compilation of data if everyone would contribute and add all the movies that they catch using the hegelian principles--

HEAD TOWARDS THE MONOLITH! ive seen it!! insectopia!!

Aye, t'was me that tha' hit the Pentagon, Sonny Boy!!

Oh I don't know maybe they were diverted to one of the many controled airfields owned by the US government and was destroyed dismantled or disguised, totally within the realm of possibility.

The planes at the twin towers were pulverized...what 's the question about this plane? I'm glad DJ put up those sites of witnesses' testimony.

God, this gets better and better. LOL

I still like the fact that the "terrorists" crashed into the side that was closed for maintanece. What are the odds?

I am so grateful for this great contribution you have made to this thread
EDIT: nvm, i didnt realize that u made this thread. But what is your true opinion ot this information? Do you have anything else to add, did u see something else you like?



How do you explain the pentagon releasing only 5 stills from a camera? Can you plz find out who exactly released them?

Can anyone please explain why the only video footage released by the Pentagon was a handful of rather low quality stills, with the wrong date/time, and on the top of that anonymously. As the video in the initial post showed, there were multiple video cameras pointing directly at the area of impact and the flight path of the object. And how about the cameras in the building?


"I still like the fact that the "terrorists" crashed into the side that was closed for maintenance. What are the odds?"

Yes, by the way that part of the building was also being under maintenance to withstand stronger impacts. What bad luck the terrorists had. Their goal was to kill, but they managed to highjack planes that only had 20% occupancy when the average is 80%, hit the lest occupied part of the twin towers, And hit the least occupied And strongest part of the pentagon! Not to mention the fact that several of those same terrorists have been found alive and well.

Just a random stab in the dark would put the chances to 1 in 5.

Stellar what do you think hit the Pentagon? (jw)(if u posted it somewhere in other pages I didnt read them)

Was the reconstruction/maintnace project on the whole side of the wall or a part of it? By looking at images the length of the wall is at least 5-6 times more then wing-to-wing length of a 757. If the project wasn't on that whole side of the wall then it changes the odds from 1 in 5 to at least 1 in 10 and up to 1 in 30.

Also the hit was almost if not totaly oposite side of Rumsfeld's office. What are the odds of that one?

The building is pretty big, why did they hit the side of it? It was never in question that the object in question was flying pretty low, especialy for a 'jet'. Someone sure went through a lot of trouble to stay low like that. Especialy if they just graduated with a lisence. And didnt the flight instructor say they couldnt fly good if not at all? It would be much easier for a novice to just crash into the top of the building. Hell, why not aim Rumsfeld's office? Just google and you can find were it is, that aughto show them americans!!



I would still like to know what part exactly was under reconstruction, if anyone knows.
TNX