Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

Options
24567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    thecommander wrote: »
    What does this prove/show?

    That a missile exited the other side of the building, or that the plane didn't exit the other side of the building?

    Edit: Is this another random image of the pentagon you googled?


    Do you really believe an aluminium aircraft made it through these reinforced concrete walls?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dme80ZTs6M


  • Options
    #33
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    You do know everything in that picture is photoshop?

    No I thought it was an actual real picture:confused:
    But did they take the wings off just before the plane crashed into the pentagon?

    I repeat can you show me these debris pictures your talking about, pretty please!


  • Options
    #34
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    a853_pentagon_debris_2050081722-21381.jpg

    inside_pent_planewheelrim.jpg

    Just for comparison to an undamaged 757 wheel hub

    1rim2.jpg

    Last time I checked missiles don't carry large commercial airline wheel hubs.


  • Options
    #35
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Do you really believe an aluminium aircraft made it through these reinforced concrete walls?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dme80ZTs6M

    The previous picture you posted with the red arrows; are the arrows menat to imply no damage?


  • Options
    #36
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Do you really believe an aluminium aircraft made it through these reinforced concrete walls?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dme80ZTs6M

    Are you seriously comparing a Jet Fighter weighing 13,890 kg with a unknown amount of fuel to a Boeing 757 weighing 115,680 kg which is also carrying a possible fuel load of up to 43,490 L of aviation fuel?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Do you really believe an aluminium aircraft made it through these reinforced concrete walls?

    We're not talking about something made out of tin foil here! The 757 is a large aircraft weighing over 100 tons carrying up to 40,000 litres of highly flammable aviation fuel travelling at over 500 mph!!


  • Options
    #38
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing a Jet Fighter weighing 13,890 kg with a unknown amount of fuel to a Boeing 757 weighing 115,680 kg which is also carrying a possible fuel load of up to 43,490 L of aviation fuel?



    Wouldn't the nose cone be heavier, because of equipment?


  • Options
    #39
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing a Jet Fighter weighing 13,890 kg with a unknown amount of fuel to a Boeing 757 weighing 115,680 kg which is also carrying a possible fuel load of up to 43,490 L of aviation fuel?

    No I'm asking YOU, do YOU believe an aluminium aircraft made it all the way from the entry point to the exit point?


  • Options
    #40
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    fontanalis wrote: »
    Wouldn't the nose cone be heavier, because of equipment?



    Sorry, i dont understand what you mean?

    The nose of which craft?


  • Options
    #41
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    We're not talking about something made out of tin foil her!. The 757 is a large aircraft weighing over 100 tons carrying up to 40,000 litres of highly flammable aviation fuel travelling at over 500 mph!!

    We're talking about an aluminium aircraft, highly flammable aviation fuel doesn't punch holes in mass concrete.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    No I'm asking YOU, do YOU believe an aluminium aircraft made it all the way from the entry point to the exit point?

    Of course. It's a large aircraft weighing over 100 tons flying at over 500 mph!!!


  • Options
    #43
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    We're talking about an aluminium aircraft, highly flammable aviation fuel doesn't punch holes in mass concrete.

    Fuel explodes and stuff....you know.....causes damage to the building. And with 100 tons of metal flying at 500 mph I am amazed that you think it weird that it would cause damage.


  • Options
    #44
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    fontanalis wrote: »
    The previous picture you posted with the red arrows; are the arrows menat to imply no damage?

    Can you show me the damage the engines and wings caused please.


  • Options
    #45
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    uprising2 wrote: »
    No I'm asking YOU, do YOU believe an aluminium aircraft made it all the way from the entry point to the exit point?


    Yeah why not, why would the inner walls behind the first be highly reinforced.


  • Options
    #46
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Fuel explodes and stuff....you know.....causes damage to the building. And with 100 tons of metal flying at 500 mph I am amazed that you think it weird that it would cause damage.

    You obviously know nothing about building's,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsDEA77dgaU




  • Options
    #47
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Can you show me the damage the engines and wings caused please.

    In the real world a plane hitting a reinforced building is not going to leave a nice cartoon style outline of itself as it hits the building. Let's leave that for Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote


  • Options
    #48
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Some interesting reading here, together with some responses (rebuttles).
    A veteran Air Force mechanic .......blaming a plane for the damage makes no sense. The evidence was staged, he said.

    http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/air-force-vet-breaks-silence-on-what-hit-pentagon-on-9-11/


  • Options
    #49
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Yeah why not, why would the inner walls behind the first be highly reinforced.


    ERM.........Because it's the pentagon maybe?:confused::confused::confused:


  • Options
    #50
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    In the real world a plane hitting a reinforced building is not going to leave a nice cartoon style outline of itself as it hits the building. Let's leave that for Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote

    Bugs bunny???, answer the question.

    And a plane hitting a reinforced building is not going to continue through, look at this pic, notice anything strange?, like where are the other fukking holes on the trajectory???????
    7.jpg


  • Options
    #51
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    You obviously know nothing about building's,

    I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't a clue and I have no idea why you posted those videos. I notice you still haven't commented on the photos of the aircraft debris at the Pentagon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Bugs bunny???, answer the question


    What happened to the Fighter Jet in your video when it hit the wall?


  • Options
    #53
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Bugs bunny???, answer the question

    Cartoon style outlines happen only in cartoons....not in the real world. The wings would have broken off and followed the bulk of the plane in through the hole created by the nose of the craft. I mean it's pretty clear and logical. To expect 2 nice outlines of wings is fanciful to say the least


  • Options
    #54
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    What happened to the Fighter Jet in your video when it hit the wall?


    It didn't go through..


  • Options
    #55
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Cartoon style outlines happen only in cartoons....not in the real world. The wings would have broken off and followed the bulk of the plane in through the hole created by the nose of the craft. I mean it's pretty clear and logical. To expect 2 nice outlines of wings is fanciful to say the least

    They broke off and then followed the rest through?, FFS, stop watching them cartoons.


  • Options
    #56
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    uprising2 wrote: »
    It didn't go through..


    Do i have to post the difference between a Jet hitting a wall thats nearly as thick as the jet and a 100 ton 757, So Dont try and be smart, the Jet disintergrated on impact. Which is what would of happened to the 757.


  • Options
    #57
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    I'm afraid you are the one who hasn't a clue and I have no idea why you posted those videos. I notice you still haven't commented on the photos of the aircraft debris at the Pentagon.


    7.jpg

    Look at this pic, now WHERE are the other holes in the trajectory???, and why is the debris on the grass all nice and shiny, freshly polished, should it not be scorched with such a massive explosion???????as for the wheels, they are wheels, but they could be anywhere.
    2861890949_9d68bc1505.jpg?v=0


  • Options
    #58
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Do i have to post the difference between a Jet hitting a wall thats nearly as thick as the jet and a 100 ton 757, So Dont try and be smart, the Jet disintergrated on impact. Which is what would of happened to the 757.

    Yes I agree, so what punched out the fukking hole multiple walls later???


  • Options
    #59
    PirateShampoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,406 ✭✭✭PirateShampoo


    Gas Explosion for all i know, your asking me to give a possable answer from 1 photo at a bad angle, if it was a missile attack like you say then there would also be mulitpal holes.


  • Options
    #60
    fontanalis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Can you show me the damage the engines and wings caused please.

    i thought you said aluminium wouldn't cause damage!!!
    Anyway, aren't the wings the lightest part of the plane?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,104 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    as for the wheels, they are wheels, but they could be anywhere.
    2861890949_9d68bc1505.jpg?v=0

    Strawman argument.

    Can you explain why a 757 wheel hub was found in the Pentagon?


Advertisement