9-11 cover Up? You be the judge!

[500whp]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html#Main

[evo_dadi]

*listens to the door and waits for a knock from the fbi* :shock: :shock: i think ive seen this on other sites but it always crreps me out.brings mel gibson into mind when he did the conspiracy theory movie.

[vtluu]

One thing this little conspiracy theory fails to explain is what happened to the airliner full of passengers that was verifiably missing. It didn't just disappear into thin air, so if--as these guys claim--it didn't go into the Pentagon, then where did it go?

Sigh, everybody wants to be a Michael Moore... :roll:

[warpspeed]

It was a missile. Like it said: "can a 757 make a hole this clean?" I'm no expert, but I've seen how missiles his buildings from watching other military films and it looks like a missile hit the building.

[Buzzard]

It was a missile. Like it said: "can a 757 make a hole this clean?" I'm no expert, but I've seen how missiles his buildings from watching other military films and it looks like a missile hit the building.

So, let me get this straight, your a ballistics expert from watching movies? Making judgements of this nature based on entertainment media is so perposterous that I cannot even fathom the logic. According to movies, every car that is in a accident explodes as if it is loaded with C4.

[vtluu]

Yes, we're all experts, clearly our day-to-day experience equips us all fully to understand exactly how an airliner slamming into a building will behave... :?

[009]

then y they cover it up and is the plan ever existed?

[hellz Evo]

makes you think.

[LEVIII]

Yeah, I want ot know what happened to the plane if it didnt hit the pentagone.

Then whats the theory on where the missle came from?

A couple people said it sounded and looked like a missle, what about the people who said it sounded and looked like a plane, why werent they in this clip?

[Buzzard]

I just got back home and have seen some of the comments, come on. Let's look at this one point at a time.

The Pentagon is extremely large, heavily reinforced structure. This is not a wood-framed, chicken-wire stucco home, this building was designed to with-stand some conventional bomb damage.

One of their first suggestions is that this was a missle strike. But they show "evidence" that contradicts this contention. Where is the impact crater that would have been made when the warhead exploded? Not to mention the ballistic path is totally wrong for any ballistic missle, so that means only cruise missle could have been used. But there is still no crater and lets not forget that large hole that punched through ring C that they are so enamored with, how could a missle that exploded into ring E have penetrated through ring C? It couldn't. So it seems that if it was a missle, it defies all other missle strikes in history.

Now for the commuter plane theory. Does anyone really think that a tiny plane holding maybe 10 people could have done any damage beyond Ring E? Or even the scale of damage to just Ring E? I have seen pictures where a Lear jet hit a house and half the house was still standing. There is just no way a plane that size could have done that level of damage to the Pentagon.

They also ask if it was the 757, where is the debris? But later in their little video, they show pictures of a plane that crashed on landing (at a far more reduced speed than a 757 at full thrust, btw) and left very little of that plane. Imagine that wreckage after hitting the largest building in the world (I believe it still holds that honor). Commercial aircraft are not designed to have impacts with other objects, they generally disenegrate when they do so.

They also ignored the fact that CNN was reporting that air traffic control was tracking an inbound commercial aircraft right before the Pentagon got hit.

My opinion regarding the mysterious hole in Ring C is that it was, most likely, caused by one of the engines. I have seen video of air crashes and the engines always go flying off upon impact. This, to me at least, seems like a more logical conclusion than what they came up with. There is, no doubt, other objects that could have caused that hole, coming from either the plane or even the building itself, but a missle could not have done so, since it would have exploded on impact creating the non-existing crater.

Of course, these are just my opinions using logic and experience having worked for a engineering consulting firm. Remember my earlier comment about Hollywood's penchant for exploding cars? Just because something crashed, doesn't mean it will explode on impact. Fire is a more likely result after impact so it is entirely reasonable that they plane could have plowed into Ring E with out exploding, instead catching fire (which the photos show). Also remember, it wasn't the impacts that destroyed the WTC, it was the resulting fire that destablized the structures leading to the collapses.

For reference for weapon and aircraft specifications, this is the source to use http://www.janes.com/
Unfortunately, they have gone to a paid subscriber plan to access the technical details of the world's weapon systems but the information they supply is with out doubt the finest in the world and the the standard reference used.