9/11 a lie?
So the first time I heard that I heard that 9/11, the twin towers and pentagon incidents was far from what it seemed, I shrugged it off as something fabricated by conspiracy nuts. I figured it was so obvious from watching the media coverage, that that we were hit by a highly organized terrorist strike on 9/11. Little did I know there were so many
( Read more... )
I would say that the reason we don't have footage of the plane hitting the pentagon is because there are a lot fewer tourists with videocameras in the vicinity of the pentagon than there are in New York City. Most security cameras, especially outdoor ones like the ones on Wal-Mart only do about 1 frame every 5 or 10 seconds and don't have the greatest resolution. If a camera was panning back and forth then it is quite plausible that in the minute or so it would take to pan past the path of the plane, it would have missed it.
Yes, a jet engine can burn up by jet fuel. They aren't THAT huge. And besides, what does size have to do with anything unless you're talking about a solid block of metal, which a jet engine certainly isn't. Remember why the Trade Center fell? Because burning jet fuel burned the steel and concrete supports. A jet engine is 1) mostly made of aluminum for weight savings, except for maybe some ceramic or stainless steel turbine parts. lighter weight metals oxidize (burn) at lower temperatures and 2)just as likely to get smashed to bits as any other part of the plane. So a jet engine is the size of an SUV. Crash an SUV loaded with high-temperature fuel into the ground at 400 mph and see how much you have left.
And finally, most of the photos on "missing wreckage" and the sort were actually taken days or weeks later. It's not possible that the long line of people picking up scrap metal and debris are investigators picking it up after taking photos and video of the scene? Any wreckage that was recovered was reconstructed carefully in an airplane hanger, like they did with the Columbia debris.
If you want to find out more about these crazy speculations, go to http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite
Quite honestly, I am surprised that you buy into this at all seeing as it is quite preposterous. I mean, a cruise missile? how would they have gotten that within range of the pentagon without being seen? not over land that's for sure, so that means a boat or floating platform large enough to be stable enough to accurately launch said missile. Where did this boat come from or go to? Where did they get the guidance technology for it? Where did they get the missile in the first place? Why risk splitting up an attack by having to coordinate 2 different types of strikes (airplane hijacking and missile launching)? If they had access to this type of weaponry, why hijack the planes at all? Isn't using a hijacked passenger-laden airplane more terrible (terrorist-y?) than just using a conventional weapon?
This "theory" really brings up a lot more complicated/stupid questions than it answers.
Reply
The reason I brought up the size of the jet engines is because these are big and solid enough to be making holes in the pentagon. I never said they were too large to burn up. The reason I said they shouldn't completely burn up is because they are designed to burn jet fuel. Just like if my car exploded and was on fire for a while, I would still be able to find large pieces of the engine. If a relatively lightweight and flimsy cabin makes a hole that large and long, then why don't we have two other major holes? Did the wings fold in and the jet engines follow directly behind the cabin somehow?
I'm not saying I have all the answers, but what I am saying that there are a whole lot of holes in the 757 explanation. Who fired the missile is very debatable.
Oh and about the vapor trails...the only time the vapor trails are going to be visable is if the temperature outside the plane is below zero and ice crystals are created. Otherwise, it is practically invisable. Also if a turbofan does leave a trail, there is always a gap between the engine and the trail because it takes time for the vapor to cool down. In this case the 757 would be further left of the post and even easier to see. But that doesn't matter anyways, since turbofans don't leave trails on warm days.
Also if you compare the explosions from the WTC to the pentagon, you'll notice that the explosion on the pentagon is much much brighter than the dark black and orange/yellow explosion.
Are you familiar with building 7 in the WTC?
Reply
A jet engine can burn up and explode the same way a car engine can. When in operation the jet fuel is burning, expanding as a gas and being released, plus massive amounts of oxygen and air are flowing in to cool it. If it is just sitting there in a fire, its going to melt. Especially if it has already been bashed into smithereens by hitting the ground at 550 miles per hour.
the engines probably hit the ground, seing as they are lower than the cockpit and fuselage.
I dont think there are any holes in the 757 explanation because
1) hundreds of witnesses on the nearby highway
2) the people who were on flight 77 are dead, either that or they are just mysteriously missing coincidentally OR they were made up and all their "families" and "friends" are just part of this huge conspiracy, is that right?
Chance. Wake up. It doesn't make any damn sense.
It is quite obvious that the people who are coming up with these "explanations" have never heard of Occam's Razor.
It's that or their crazy OR, most likely, they are trying to distract people from the real questions about our pre-9/11 intelligence and Bush's ties with Saudis.
Reply
Leave a comment