What happened to the wreckage??

J

jimeco

Guest
Hi everyone,

I don't know if you've already discussed this, but I was just browsing the web and can upon this picture from Popular Mechanics.
Link

This is a picture of the fuselage of flight 175 that hit the second tower at WTC.
So this plane hit a rather robust building, exploded upon impact, was inside as the 400m tower collapsed, was burried under a huge pile of concrete, metal and... office supplies. ;)

And some how this piece of the fuselage "survived" it all!!!

It didn't vaporize into thin air, although "the burning jet fuel melted the steel costrunction of the WTC". (lol)

So how can enybody expect us to believe the official Pentagon story??
How can anyone BELIEVE that story??

The average Joe (sorry JQ) might say "I now nothing about science, maybe that plane did vaporize. How should I know? I just go with the flow!"
But when you see that a fuselage (well part of it at least) can survive what happened to flight 175 you don't have to be a scientist to see that somethings don't add up here.
It even happend on the very same day with the same type of plane.

Seriously! Wake up and smell the crap flowing out of your TV!!

Just my three cents...

Greetz
 
welcome to the forum, jimeco.

yeah, some of the lies are so blatant, its as if they are testing to see how much they can get away with - testing the maximum extent of the public's gullibility. Like the passenger DNA samples recovered from the Pentagon site where the plane was vapourised. huh?!

regarding 'popular mechanics' as a viable source of info you might be amused to read this interview with the editor/researcher Davin Coburn:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3294

yeah, the amount of BS being peddled, makes it harder and harder to sift through to find any meaningful/credible evidence. but that's the idea, of course.
I think that means that as time goes by, new evidence sources become more and more questionable, and we have to use as much of the earlier evidence as possible, such as the original pictures/videos/statements etc.
 
I agree that the video is very compelling but it does not anwer this question: ... what DID happen to those people on AA-77 if the flight did not hit the Pentagon?
 
kwaj said:
I agree that the video is very compelling but it does not anwer this question: ... what DID happen to those people on AA-77 if the flight did not hit the Pentagon?
Probably the only thing that can happen - gotten rid of.
 
Well, if a government is willing to kill almost 3000 innocent civilians in the destruction of the towers in order to forward their agenda of global domination, what do you think might have happend to the passengers on flight 77? (hint - - they weren't sent on vacation to Tahiti)
 
I believe that the explanation is that the aircraft was completely atomized on impact, due to the pentagon being made of reinforced concrete, as opposed to just steel and office supplies (although the Pentagon probably had that as well):D.

It's similar to what happened to the aircraft tin this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw&eurl=

EDIT: Is it just me, or is the writing on this site really small?
 
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
I believe that the explanation is that the aircraft was completely atomized on impact, due to the pentagon being made of reinforced concrete, as opposed to just steel and office supplies (although the Pentagon probably had that as well):D.

It's similar to what happened to the aircraft tin this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw&eurl=
Well, if you look at the movie, something does seem to come through the wall, but the movie shots are cut off before the dust settles, so we may not know if the plane had actually vaporized.

Does the wall in the movie have the same thickness as those at the pentagon? Were the wall - and the plane - in the movie made from the same materials as the wall and the plane on 911? Was the plane moving at the same speed on impact? Had it the same shape? If not, then the effects you see in the movie may not represent the reality of the Pentagon strike.

Also, if you look at the Pentagon Strike flash, you can see that the plane flied through six walls, actually, before coming to rest..
 
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
I believe that the explanation is that the aircraft was completely atomized on impact, due to the pentagon being made of reinforced concrete
you can believe what you like. I'm more interested in facts. how do you square your above 'belief' with the well known and widely distributed picture of the wall inside the C-ring with a huge circular hole punched through it?
 
sleepyvinny said:
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
I believe that the explanation is that the aircraft was completely atomized on impact, due to the pentagon being made of reinforced concrete
you can believe what you like. I'm more interested in facts. how do you square your above 'belief' with the well known and widely distributed picture of the wall inside the C-ring with a huge circular hole punched through it?
It's just what Han just said. The Pentagon does not have the same thickness of concrete as that test, and besides, a 757 is a lot bigger than a F4, I was showing you an example of what probably happened to the fuselage.

The large hole you refer to was made by the lower section of the plane, mainly the landing gear, which is the strongest part of an aircraft.

I must also remind you that the Pentagon did not use reinforced concrete throughout all the rings, just the outer one.

And I said "belief" because I thought that was the explanation, I was using it in the same way as "think".

"I think the explanation..."
"I believe the explanation..."
 
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
The large hole you refer to was made by the lower section of the plane, mainly the landing gear, which is the strongest part of an aircraft.
You must be joking. Or you are indeed a "senior officer" :)

Here is a quote from one from our readers:

[...] I am probably one of the most qualified people that you will meet to judge some of the info that people claim. I have served in the U.S. Army for a number of years now, I have not only dealt with weapons of every type you can imagine, I have also had a great deal of experience with aircraft, not to mention my brother is an analyst for the military who deals with a great many things. First of all I can guarantee that no missile did this, none of the patterns add up for such a thing to work, damage ratio is wrong, flight path is wrong, style of impact is wrong. Also think of the item it was hitting, a hardened building made of concrete and steal, all reinforced. Also I can tell you no large aircraft did this [...]
I'm starting to think that maybe it was a TL AM type 2 block 4, better known as a tomahawk type 2 bunker buster with booster and hardened warhead. While most would say this is absurd because a weapon like that would have completely leveled the Pentagon and a good deal around it I am however still inclined to believe that this might possibly be what did it. This is my thinking on the matter, the new TLAMs are programmable to pick entry point and detonation point, the hardened warhead on them allows them to penetrate the hardest of buildings and they hit going much faster then the old type 1s that are commonly seen in war footage and test footage. I think that somehow one of our new type 2s found itself set on a guided path to the pentagon with a side impact and center detonation programming, but for some reason the warhead never went off. That would give it the energy to do the damage and drive through the walls like it did but by never exploding it would still leave most of the building perfectly intact like what we seen with the pentagon, the only problem I can see with this is there would have been no fire had this happened unless something inside the building started burning. Now they could have just mounted a much weaker warhead on the thing for the sole purpose of starting the fire but I don't see why. If this is what happened though then someone wanted it to happen like this, to mount a type 2 with a weak warhead not to mention set it on a path with the parameters like what are needed for this and no one use the "safety" and blow it up mid flight it would have to be pretty damn deliberate.Also the type 2 matches closer to the size proportions of the object that was captured on video. I'm still only going on speculation here as are most of the people who know that they are being lied to, and the email you sent me was very helpful in getting me thinking about this some more, to tell you the truth I don't even think that the fire was at the low burning temp of 800 degrees, a fire that hot would have gone farther to bursting the windows and distorting the structure of the building. The more i look into and use knowledge of missiles tho the more I'm starting to think that maybe it was something we haven't seen before and to not take the risk of disclosing to the public that a test project went wrong or that someone did this with something new of ours they made up the entire pentagon part of 911 at the very least and went through a whole lot of trouble doing it. Well
 
ark said:
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
The large hole you refer to was made by the lower section of the plane, mainly the landing gear, which is the strongest part of an aircraft.
You must be joking. Or you are indeed a "senior officer" :)

Here is a quote from one from our readers:

[...] I am probably one of the most qualified people that you will meet to judge some of the info that people claim. I have served in the U.S. Army for a number of years now, I have not only dealt with weapons of every type you can imagine, I have also had a great deal of experience with aircraft, not to mention my brother is an analyst for the military who deals with a great many things. First of all I can guarantee that no missile did this, none of the patterns add up for such a thing to work, damage ratio is wrong, flight path is wrong, style of impact is wrong. Also think of the item it was hitting, a hardened building made of concrete and steal, all reinforced. Also I can tell you no large aircraft did this [...]
I'm starting to think that maybe it was a TL AM type 2 block 4, better known as a tomahawk type 2 bunker buster with booster and hardened warhead. While most would say this is absurd because a weapon like that would have completely leveled the Pentagon and a good deal around it I am however still inclined to believe that this might possibly be what did it. This is my thinking on the matter, the new TLAMs are programmable to pick entry point and detonation point, the hardened warhead on them allows them to penetrate the hardest of buildings and they hit going much faster then the old type 1s that are commonly seen in war footage and test footage. I think that somehow one of our new type 2s found itself set on a guided path to the pentagon with a side impact and center detonation programming, but for some reason the warhead never went off. That would give it the energy to do the damage and drive through the walls like it did but by never exploding it would still leave most of the building perfectly intact like what we seen with the pentagon, the only problem I can see with this is there would have been no fire had this happened unless something inside the building started burning. Now they could have just mounted a much weaker warhead on the thing for the sole purpose of starting the fire but I don't see why. If this is what happened though then someone wanted it to happen like this, to mount a type 2 with a weak warhead not to mention set it on a path with the parameters like what are needed for this and no one use the "safety" and blow it up mid flight it would have to be pretty damn deliberate.Also the type 2 matches closer to the size proportions of the object that was captured on video. I'm still only going on speculation here as are most of the people who know that they are being lied to, and the email you sent me was very helpful in getting me thinking about this some more, to tell you the truth I don't even think that the fire was at the low burning temp of 800 degrees, a fire that hot would have gone farther to bursting the windows and distorting the structure of the building. The more i look into and use knowledge of missiles tho the more I'm starting to think that maybe it was something we haven't seen before and to not take the risk of disclosing to the public that a test project went wrong or that someone did this with something new of ours they made up the entire pentagon part of 911 at the very least and went through a whole lot of trouble doing it. Well
What has this got to do with landing gear?
 
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
What has this got to do with landing gear?
Its called physical reality getting in the way of imaginary aircraft parts, and 'magic' aircraft behaviour which describes what happens when planes are flown by people that don't exist.

I would have thought you'd be more interested in the holes in the WTC, than the Pentagon. =D
 
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
The large hole you refer to was made by the lower section of the plane, mainly the landing gear, which is the strongest part of an aircraft.
From Physics911.ca

From gif animation provided, it would appear to me that the object that hit the Pentagon bears a silhouette, remarkably similar to a Global Hawk.
Maybe this would explain the almost total lack of debris! I once saw a photo of what appeared to be the front landing gear of the object that hit the building, it was near what appeared to be a small golf buggy type vehicle, and was hardly the landing gear of an airliner, as it was only a 3rd the size of the buggy.
Check also this from 911physics.atspace.com

[...]Your probably thinking well both those wheels are some what similar. Well they are some what similar, however they are not the same. The wheel found at the Pentagon is too small to of come from a Boeing 757. If we count the amount of holes in each wheel we find.

Boeing 757-200 Wheel Has: 10 holes.

Wheel Found At The Pentagon Has: 8 holes.

Now I have seen someone supposedly debunk this. However the picture of the wheel they provided was not from the same model Boeing 757. (The Boeing 757 that supposedly struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200.)
Check also this from nomoregames.net

- A 757 flying a nearly flat flight profile (no dive) at 500+ mph as alleged could not hit the Pentagon's ground floor because of an extremely powerful ground effect cushion beneath it. At high speeds, the highly energized wing-tip vortices and huge downwash sheet of a 200,000-lb. airliner make it physically impossible to get closer to the ground than one-half wingspan or about 60' in this case. The physical forces of the compressible gas called air, in other words, stirred by a high-speed 757 traveling flat near the ground make it impossible to land it at high speed. An aeronautical engineer proves this proposition in an article at www.physics911.net, and he invites other engineers and pilots to prove him wrong. Very few pilots have experienced the aerodynamic effects in this rare flight domain because they normally only get this close to the ground during landing at low speeds. Highly wing-loaded aircraft like the Global Hawk or B1-B can land at high speed but not lightly wing-loaded aircraft like the 757. In addition, a ground-hugging 757 spewing a 100,000-lb. thrust jetblast behind it would have blown trailer trucks and people away, phenomena absent in the flight path (see the DVD "Loose Change" for an example). Irrefutable physics falsifies the Pentagon's lies.
And here is my reply to one of many supporters of the "official story"

> AA77 did crash into the Pentagon.


Look at this neat round hole after so many layers of concrete as you can see at

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm


What you write contradicts what other experts with similar experience (and more military training that yours) write. Let me quote:

""it surely wouldn't make a nice hole through many of the layers such at we have seen here, thinking of the missile aspect that has been suggested by many, the biggest problem with this theory is that missiles are by
design made to hit from the top, even the ones that hit from a side angle would go through the first level or so and then detonate, by doing so, the space in between the levels would channel the blast energy along the walls and up, at most after the first layer only the windows would break and it would scorch some paint. hmm just by the damage done it would appear like a hardened device using kinetic energy to penetrate the walls is what hit the pentagon, much like a 155 mm howitzer round but that would mean that most of what we have seen is wrong, not to mention 155mm round doesn't make an entry hole that big. "

Any comments on that?

Moreover the US government is known and world famous for lies. Video tapes have been confiscated and not released. All this tells us that there is something to hide. And we do have

"the damage done it would appear like a hardened device using kinetic energy to penetrate the walls is what hit the pentagon, much like a 155 mm howitzer round"

If there is one fact that contradicts a nice theory (most probably a lie, because what would you expect from the government that is based on lies to a ridiculous extent - all the world would just laughing - except that these lies are supported by nuclear power) - then the theory needs to be abandoned.
Now, please, use logic. Remeber that in a detective story like this, one needs ALWAYS look at the larger picture. If you find a knofe in kitchen drawer - you are not suspicious. But when you find a knife at the crime scene, when someone has been stabbed - the meaning is different. Senior Officer surely must know it. But does he?
 
Ruth said:
SeniorOfficerPotnky said:
What has this got to do with landing gear?
Its called physical reality getting in the way of imaginary aircraft parts, and 'magic' aircraft behaviour which describes what happens when planes are flown by people that don't exist.

I would have thought you'd be more interested in the holes in the WTC, than the Pentagon. =D
What about the holes?

We know those planes were Boeing 767 class, and left two plane-shaped holes in the WTC.

The WTC is not made of reinforced concrete, if that's what you are suggesting.

Ark, I think that there is still a problem with the Global Hawk theory, and that is a Global Hawk has a single Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan on top of it, and no engines on the wings. How could the generator and ground structure be damaged without those engines?
 
Back
Top Bottom