Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses


Q24

Recommended Posts

One would think. :yes:

A meager understanding of the kinetic energy of A 120 + ton aircraft slamming into the ground at 800 feet per second would help. I don't suppose most CTs could imagine such energy.

Wings and fuselage?

Expecting more than small pieces of human being is basically lunacy.

Ts just don't understand how an aircraft would be essentially vaporized in such an impact... :angry:

It boggles the mind to think there are conspiracy folks who think that an airliner striking the ground at over 500 mph would look something like this.

w19910202.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think he's trolling. Trolling would indicate that he knows he is wrong yet want to cause headaches for us.

I don't think he knows he's wrong, thats the problem.

Perhaps you're right, but the disrespectful way that he is mocking the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers could very easily be interpreted as inflammatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not care if people choose to believe the 'official' report that came from our 'oh so honest' government (because we all know how clean their record is right folks?) - if you CHOOSE to not believe TRUE experts that will inform you that it is not possible for flight 77 to have created such a small hole in the pentagon then you have some serious iq and common sense issues and need to go back to school.

Here's a video that should help you get over believing what the Bush administration told us happened. I'm siding with the people that know about planes, not a bunch of lying politicians that were itching to go to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what so many people either tend to ignore or forget or maybe, just are not able to comprehend is this......there is obviously a cover up.....why, because the Bush administration wanted to go to war. Against whom? A third world dictator? Because he had 'weapons of mass destruction' (and here's the part people who shoot down any conspiracy speaking persons) forget........

A) Saddam did NOT HAVE WEAPONS of mass destruction (as your loving fearless leader reapted multiple times) yes folks......Georgie was lying. Big surprise.

B.) It gave Bushie boy an 'excuse to spy on Americans (you know, the partriot bill) which is a crime and unconstatutional but, whatever right? It's ok to take away our freedoms.

C) It gave blue ball generals at the pentagon reason to ask for more money from Washingtonto go to war cuz, we have to kill those terrorists. Hmmmmm, if weapons of mass destruction equals a green light to invade a country and kill their leader......I guess that means it would be ok for say, China or Britian to invade us. We have weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's time American leaders live by their own words..................or maybe they should stop killing leaders of other countries.

D) It gave Bush an excuse to spend more money (i.e. incure debt) more than any other president in our history. Which is exactly what he did.

.....oh, not to mention those companies that Cheney and Bush and friends had a stake in which all proffited from the wars they started.

So no, I can't see any reason why the FBI and pentagon wont release any REAL evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.......CAN YOU????????????????? *other than the truth that NO PLANE, hit the pentagon*

So keep on believing the fable of 9/11.

Edited by kaptn k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not care if people choose to believe the 'official' report that came from our 'oh so honest' government (because we all know how clean their record is right folks?) - if you CHOOSE to not believe TRUE experts that will inform you that it is not possible for flight 77 to have created such a small hole in the pentagon then you have some serious iq and common sense issues and need to go back to school.

Here's a video that should help you get over believing what the Bush administration told us happened. I'm siding with the people that know about planes, not a bunch of lying politicians that were itching to go to war.

I have to say that video is a joke. It claims that there was no wreckage on the grounds of the Pentagon that was consistent with a B-757, when in fact, all of the pieces of wreckage from the aircraft was from a B-757.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no, I can't see any reason why the FBI and pentagon wont release any REAL evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.......CAN YOU????????????????? *other than the truth that NO PLANE, hit the pentagon*

For the record, are you claiming that the crash wreckage you see here on the grounds of the Pentagon are not from a B-757?

2006-08-08-IO-Article-pic-1.jpg

pentagon-wheel-02.jpg

b757-main-wheel-02.jpg

800px-P911_fuselage.jpg

punchout-path.jpg

Pentagon_Debris_12.jpg

775px-Pentagon_Exhibit.jpg

pentagon-engine3.jpg

So keep on believing the fable of 9/11.

Sorry, but I have done a background check on American 77, and in conjunction with the report from American Airlines, I can confirm that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon on 09/11/2001.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your photos are nice, they don't proove your point but they obviously make you feel better.

Let's see.....photo one, does not look like anything that could be plain wreakage. Photo two, a wheel well. Does not show that this photo was taken at the pentagon, it's just a photo of an object that looks like it could be from a plain but ok. Photo four, you honestly buy in that that is part of the plain that somehow got that far away from the crash site................all by its self........with no other bits n pieces of plain nearby? Photo five, shows the tragectory of a missile that went thru the equivilent of three buildings, that plain must have been made out of the same magic material that the magic bullet that killed JFK was made out of. And here is some REAL evidence for you to look over.

911_90_07.jpg

This shows you the absurdity of what was told took place that you, beyond logic, believe.

Here is a photo taken just after impact. Notice......the wall is still standing.

911_90_08.jpg

Now, explain how a 757 can hit a building, and yet the wall was still standing when the plain's tail is 4 stories tall and a wing span of 125 ft.

Your photos do nothing to support your acceptance of the cover up. Plains............can not defy physics! Only people that wont accept the truth can defy physics by saying they will support a myth because it's easier to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your photos are nice, they don't proove your point but they obviously make you feel better.

Let's see.....photo one, does not look like anything that could be plain wreakage. Photo two, a wheel well. Does not show that this photo was taken at the pentagon, it's just a photo of an object that looks like it could be from a plain but ok. Photo four, you honestly buy in that that is part of the plain that somehow got that far away from the crash site................all by its self........with no other bits n pieces of plain nearby? Photo five, shows the tragectory of a missile that went thru the equivilent of three buildings, that plain must have been made out of the same magic material that the magic bullet that killed JFK was made out of. And here is some REAL evidence for you to look over.

911_90_07.jpg

This shows you the absurdity of what was told took place that you, beyond logic, believe.

Here is a photo taken just after impact. Notice......the wall is still standing.

911_90_08.jpg

Now, explain how a 757 can hit a building, and yet the wall was still standing when the plain's tail is 4 stories tall and a wing span of 125 ft.

Your photos do nothing to support your acceptance of the cover up. Plains............can not defy physics! Only people that wont accept the truth can defy physics by saying they will support a myth because it's easier to accept.

The windows were blast resistent windows, and, I posted sections that were part of the wings. You can also go back and take a look the light post that were knocked down by the wings of the B-757, and you can determine the path of the fuselage as it continued through the Pentagon.

punchout-path.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

punchout-path.jpg

Hello Skyeeagle,

can I ask, the last picture you posted that shows a hole on the inside, is this where the nose of the plane is supposed to have come to a halt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Skyeeagle,

can I ask, the last picture you posted that shows a hole on the inside, is this where the nose of the plane is supposed to have come to a halt?

Yes.

pentagon-hole-de.jpg

Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your OPINION is not a FACT, no matter how many times you repeat it.

You refuse to produce ANY evidence to back up your claims, therefore, it remains an OPINION only.

The sooner you understand that FACT, the better off we will all be.

Cz

That works both ways sir. The government story cannot be proved, pictures posted here by Sky notwithstanding. Though it is a technique attributed to Goebbels, it is effective--retelling a grand lie many times ad nauseam. Retelling a tale does not really make it true.

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that I've seen a fair number of aircraft wrecks from the air, including the "wreck" that was said to be UA93. That day and since (they have been taken from the internet last year or two) the videos, and the testimony of people taking them and on the ground, there was no wreckage of a 757 in that field at Shanksville.

And let's face it Cz--you and I will simply agree to disagree. You believe the government story, I do not. Just that simple. Nothing personal, just a difference of opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

pentagon-hole-de.jpg

Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

Yeah, an aluminum eggshell fuselage, having left rubble on the yard hundreds of feet behind, penetrates 2 or 3 rings of the concrete Pentagon. Oh so credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C.

cheers Sky. Landing gear makes more sense than the nose of the plane. I think you can make out the wheel also just to the right of the fireman amongst the debris.

This could be where the picture you sometimes post of the wheel came from?!? :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, an aluminum eggshell fuselage, having left rubble on the yard hundreds of feet behind, penetrates 2 or 3 rings of the concrete Pentagon. Oh so credible.

Question: What was the position of the nose landing gear struct at the time of impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheers Sky. Landing gear makes more sense than the nose of the plane. I think you can make out the wheel also just to the right of the fireman amongst the debris.

This could be where the picture you sometimes post of the wheel came from?!? :tu:

The wheel I posted earlier was from the main landing gear, but the nose landing gear struct would have struck with the force of a high speed battering ram moving at over 500 mph.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it would have been retracted in its aluminum compartment Sky, where it was when the aluminum fuselage first struck the concrete structure. (Remember the picture of the F-4 you showed us)

And ain't it neat how that (F-4?) fuselage retained its integrity so well that a perfectly symmetrical exit circle would be made at the end? With nothing visible that made that perfect exit circle?

Edited by Babe Ruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, an aluminum eggshell fuselage, having left rubble on the yard hundreds of feet behind, penetrates 2 or 3 rings of the concrete Pentagon. Oh so credible.

Even soft-bodied objects such as birds, can seriously damaged steel and titanium parts.

Bird Damage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it would have been retracted in its aluminum compartment Sky, where it was when the aluminum fuselage first struck the concrete structure. (Remember the picture of the F-4 you showed us)

And ain't it neat how that (F-4?) fuselage retained its integrity so well that a perfectly symmetrical exit circle would be made at the end? With nothing visible that made that perfect exit circle?

An F-4 is not the size of a B-757.The hole definitely was caused by the B-757, and nothing to do with a bomb.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no, I can't see any reason why the FBI and pentagon wont release any REAL evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.......CAN YOU????????????????? *other than the truth that NO PLANE, hit the pentagon

Lots of eye witnesses would disagree with you. I love this kind of argument, because you were not present when something struck the pentagon you default to the opinion that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

Tell me, what do you think it was? A missile that was holographically made to look like a plane? Perhaps it was a small private jet? The bodies found in the wreckage would disagree with your claim there.

In any case, there is already a thread for the topic of video proof from the pentagon. I think your reply just derailed this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe the government story, I do not. Just that simple.

The crux of the matter. It is just that simple:

You believe.

You have to believe.

We, however, don't.

We know what the evidence clearly shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of eye witnesses would disagree with you. I love this kind of argument, because you were not present when something struck the pentagon you default to the opinion that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

It seems the 9/11 Truthers just can't seem to get it right, but perhaps, he is just messing with us.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crux of the matter. It is just that simple:

You believe.

You have to believe.

We, however, don't.

We know what the evidence clearly shows.

Kinda like they just positively KNEW that the earth was flat, eh? :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda like they just positively KNEW that the earth was flat, eh? :w00t:

And they were proved wrong because there was EVIDENCE to support the world was round.

Please enlighten us, I'm sure a lot of us want to be proven wrong, yet YOU can't provide the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can lead a horse to water Raptor, but one cannot make him drink.

The evidence is all 'round, but you refuse to consider it.

For example, and I forget if you've commented already, but just how on earth can one explain that mystery of why there were pools of molten steel in the bowels of WTC for days or weeks?

Some prefer to pretend that it wasn't there, but it was there.

That is one piece of evidence, there in plain sight, that makes an explanation of "gravitational collapse" invalid. Yes, gravity works everywhere on the planet 24/7, but a gravitational collapse alone cannot melt structural steel and keep it in such a state for days, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can lead a horse to water Raptor, but one cannot make him drink.

The evidence is all 'round, but you refuse to consider it.

For example, and I forget if you've commented already, but just how on earth can one explain that mystery of why there were pools of molten steel in the bowels of WTC for days or weeks?

Some prefer to pretend that it wasn't there, but it was there.That is one piece of evidence, there in plain sight, that makes an explanation of "gravitational collapse" invalid. Yes, gravity works everywhere on the planet 24/7, but a gravitational collapse alone cannot melt structural steel and keep it in such a state for days, sorry.

Pool of molten steel? Where's the proof? Who said it was steel? Was there a study of it? Don't give me that balony of those fire fighters huddled around the pool of molten steel when clearly the glow was from a lantern or flashlights. (wish i could find that picture but im sure you already know what picture I was talking aboutt.

Oh I found it.

jones_firemen.jpg

When in fact it was actually doctored to look like molten metal.

Here is the read photo from a german magazine.

5575.jpg

Looks like some CT's doctor image to bring those who are gullible enough to want to beleive it.

Edited by RaptorBites
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.