**World Trade Centre & Pentagon Attacked**

[Ev0]

I've seen footage of an F4-E Phantom hitting a reinforced nuclear bunker at 650mph. The plane was atomised - turned to dust. The only remnants recognisable as "plane" were the wingtips, as the plane was wider than the bunker.

Coolest video ever.

All the planes used on 9/11 were 767. 747s are only used for long flights across oceans to heavily travelled destinations, although they could have in theory be used (nothing would stop them from flying off course), but the terrorists probably chose 767s since they would have more favorable handling, while still maintaining the capability to inflict massive damage, especially with a full load of fuel.

And for attacking a low building such as the pentagon, a dive attack would be more favorable since a low level approach would have plenty of obstacles to keep track of, ranging from power lines to buildings to freeways. A dive attack offers a simple, straight forward approach to the attack.

 

[Dave A]

Even the "We didn't really land on the moon" theory is more credible than this, and that was a load of bull doo-doo.

I know, and no one's flamed me yet. Don't worry I know it was a plane but I keep thinking 747 not 767, not that it would make THAT big a difference, the website linked provides ton's of eye witness reports of a small plane or missile, the only problem with my opinion is I have no idea how many people saw a 767 or large commercial jet compared to thenumber of people quoted on that site.

As for plane wreakage the 767 wasn't doing 650Mph, also theres alot more of it to just vanish that an F4-E, bu then I'm not aerospace engineer so I couldn't say what would or should be left for sure.

 

[The359]

Do you happen to know any of the people quoted as "eyewitnesses"? Because I saw one quote that listed the person as "Shady". Completely credible to me

Nothing in that video shows anything to make me believe anything other then a plane hit the Pentagon.

Small hole on the outside? No crap, you can't see the rest of the hole in the smoke.

Small hole on the 3rd section? Possible of the very nose of the plane busts through.

What are these small pieces of debris? Um, duh...PLANE?!

Lack of damage on ground? Did no one notice the radar image saying the plane was higher then 2 feet of the ground?

 

[Dave A]

No, as I just said, I'm posting the opinion of that web site, I don't know enough info from both sides of the coin so I'm posting the opinion of that site and seeing what info is contained in the replies.

And that debris was all from the building and not the plane, there was no plane found that anyone is aware of. Also the ground can very easily be damaged without the plane touching or being 20 feet from it. Do you know that an engine from a 747 can tear the tarmac off a runway if the planes brakes are left on and the plane doesn't move.

 

[Timmotheus]

Except the plane was moving.

 

[The359]

1) The engine of a 747 are more powerful then a 767.

2) The engines of a 747 at full thrust would not be able to be stopped by the brakes of the plane, much too powerful. The plane would move.

3) The plane was not that close to the ground.

4) The engines of the 767 were not necessarily at full power.

5) The debris they were showing was not part of the building, it was twisted pieces of steel from the frame of the plane.

6) If you think that it's mysterious that there isn't much of the plane left at the Pentagon, care to tell me where ANY part of either plane from the World Trade Center is at?

 

[Dave A]

Yeah, but were talking about tarmac there, around the pentagon is a load of grass which isn't as strong as tarmac, a jet engine over grass would obliterate the grass. As Famine said it could be to do with the angle of the engines, however in the vid from the pentagon the plane was flying horizontally, not at an angle downward. As I said I'm open minded and I'm only really after solid info on this, and if you guys provide enough of it to say why there wasn't more damage you've got me.

 

[Dave A]

1) The engine of a 747 are more powerful then a 767.

2) The engines of a 747 at full thrust would not be able to be stopped by the brakes of the plane, much too powerful. The plane would move.

3) The plane was not that close to the ground.

4) The engines of the 767 were not necessarily at full power.

5) The debris they were showing was not part of the building, it was twisted pieces of steel from the frame of the plane.

6) If you think that it's mysterious that there isn't much of the plane left at the Pentagon, care to tell me where ANY part of either plane from the World Trade Center is at?

I'm not after an argument here I'm after a discussion.

First off, if the brakes are on before the engine is turned on then the plane will not move.

Second as I said, the lpane was flying low over grass, not tarmac, grass can be ripped up by a jet engine rather easilly. If you want to provide proof that at the height the 767 was at wouldn't damage the grass the provide it.

Also the debris was NOT from the plane, when the cameras got there there was no debris from the plance, non, nada, zip.

As for the towers, you could still see the planes inside the buildings after they hit.

 

[The359]

I don't know what the bloody hell you were watching...

The flash video clearly showed people holding small bits of plane fuselage. They asked "what these pieces are", assuming they're from a missle.

Where in ANY World Trade Center footage could you see the remains of the two plans that hit? ESPECIALLY with the fuel/fire being hot enough to melt the steel frame of the building.

And if jets ripped up grass, then why do airport runways have grass around them, especially intact? The grass would be blown around, but how is that "damage"? Are you expecting huge patches of dirt, because you wont find them.

And no, the brakes of a plane are not strong enough to stop the thrust provided by its engines. Even the parking brake on a car can be overridden if you hit the gas enough.

 

[Dave A]

The ones where the planes hit the towers, in one the plane goes right through and you can see it's wing and nose. As for runways, the grass it to the sides, not right behind at a runway, if it was behind then it would very easilly be missing chunks all over the place. And yes if the brakes are applied BEFORE the engine is turned on, the plane will NOT move, FACT.

And once again, I'm not after an argument here so either start conversing and provide proof, I have that web site, so far you have nothing.

 

[The359]

That website doesn't offer proof that an airplane would rip up chunks of grass. So you don't have proof.

And, duh, there is grass at the ENDS of each runway, not only on the sides. ANd yet the grass is able to survive.

And your website also does not give a fact or proof that a 747 at full thrust would not be able to move if the brakes are applied. What kind of brakes do you even think an airplane has? The wheels may not move, but the thrust will be enough to push the plane along the ground. Again, put the parking brake on your car, then slam on the gas, see what happens.

 

[Duke]

If jet engines destroy grass just by flying over it, why is there healthy green lawn around nearly every airport on the planet?

Trust me: I've been within 100 yards of a hovering Harrier. I've seen an empty C5 do STOL takeoff practice from less than a quarter mile away. I'm an airplane brat from many years ago. Jet engines are powerful, but they are not flamethrowers. They don't hover a Harrier low over tarmac, because it melts - that's true. But the wash from a regular, horizontal engine thrust would not rip up tarmac or even grass in the few seconds it took for the plane to fly over.

The other reason debris was hard to come by has to do with the enclosed nature of all the crashes. When a plane flies into the ground and explodes, it breaks up over a large expanse of area, and the fireball quickly dissipates as well as the energy of the debris. NOTE that this is exactly what happened to the famous 'Let's roll...' plane that was scuttled in western Pennsylvania. But the 3 planes that hit targets all concentrated their energy into an enclosed space, and followed were terrific firestorms with incredibly high temperatures. At around 1220* F aluminum melts, and though it does not actually burn, in a sustained high-temperature fire it could well actually boil off.

 

[Dave A]

Okay the website does not provde proof that a plane can rip up tarmac or grass, but it's true and the effects of jet engine have been shown on TV. Also the grass at the ends of the runway is quite a distance from the plane, however I'm willing to accept Neon's reasoning as he seems to know what he's on about and explain why he thinks that. Not all my info is from the site, the info about the brakes is not from that site, a JET engine is not attached to the wheels of the plane, an engine in your car is, you can put the brakes on a 747 and then turn the engine on and the plane won't move. Don't argue abou what you don't know, Neon has even said it now, that the engine from a harrier can melt the tarmac. The wash as Neon called it could rip up the tarmac if it was over it for any lenth of time, I think it was 20 seconds or so to rip up a runway with a 747 engine.

 

[Duke]

At full thrust, a 747 can be held with both pilots standing on the brakes, but it wouldn't rip up the tarmac that quickly. That's one of the way they shorten takeoff runs, since jet engines accelerate slowly. Rather than let the plane roll ahead and waste runway while the engines spool up, they hold the plane on the brakes and max the throttles. Once the engines have come up to 80 or 90% output, they release the brakes and let the plane move forward quickly.

 

[Dave A]

On the BBC they said it was something like 20 or 30 seconds and the runway would start to be ripped up. I knew that the brakes could hold a 747 at full thrust, they said that as well, and then they demostrated the power of the engines while keeping the brakes on.

 

[The359]

The fact of the matter is that the plane that hit the Pentagon was NOT a 747. So even if this tearing up runway junk was true, it's moot.

 

[Dave A]

But your wrong about the brakes and about the engine not damaging the ground. I wouldn't mind, but you kept arguing over it, anyway lets leave this thread to die....again.

 

[cardude2004]

If you don't think it was a plane, than what happened to the people that we lost on the "object". Did they misteriously disappear.

 

[Dave A]

No-ones said they dopn't think it was a plane, this little info gathering session is over now mate.

 

[Nasadus]

You know,from the moment it happend untill now i firmly belived that terrorists were responsible for the attack but after reading live4speed's post i started looking around the net myself.Many sites claim that the airplanes were holographic images and that the actual damage on the WTC was caused by a cruise missle.The same goes for the Pentagon.Eye witnesses(sp?) say that whatever hit the Pentagon was not an airplane.It was way to small for that.They even mention that it was more like some sort of missle.One other thing,have a look at this video(Realplayer required) and pay attention as to what President Bush says.

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.

'I had the opportunity to talk with Principal Gwen Rigell of Booker Elementary school for about twenty minutes. [...] I asked her if in fact the President had been watching the events of 9-11 unfold on TV before he went into that classroom and she told me "Absolutely not". There was no TV in the corridor or anywhere near that classroom'

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

It must also be remembered that even after Andy Card informed Bush of the second impact, by his own admission Bush knew America was being attacked, but he continued listening to the reading skills of a classroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

I myself don't now what to make of all this.I would like to see the comments on this post as i don't know what to think of this.
I have found much more information on this subject but i'm going to wait for reactions first.

 

[Famine]

Many sites claim that the airplanes were holographic images

Let's just savour that for the moment, shall we?

The aeroplanes were holographic images.

And were the sounds they made generated by strategically placed piledrivers?

Any site you got the rest of your information from which claims that the 'planes were "holographic images" is just talking out of their sitting organ and should be entirely discounted. I mean come on. It's bad enough that people make up conspiracy theories, now they're coming up with utter (self-censored) to advance their own political leanings - and convince you of the same. "Bush is a liar", they whine. Well of COURSE he is. He's a career politician, assfaces.

 

[Nasadus]

Glad that that's taken care of.Didn't belive it anyway.But still,why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV when he could not have seen it?First there was no video of it at that time and second, there was no TV at the place he currently was at.

 

[Famine]

Would his mobile "base" - car, plane, helicopter - or any of his aides not have a TV with them? I can't imagine the President of the world's largest superpower being out of touch with any form of communication at any time.

 

[Nasadus]

Sure he had a TV in his limo but no one on could have seen the first plane hit the tower at that time since the footage of that moment wasn't released yet.After the 2nd tower collapsed then the footage of the 1st plane hitting the tower was unveiled/released by some guy who caught it with his camera.So it is not possible that he could have seen the 1st airplane hit the tower even though he says he did.

 

[ledhed]

I guess the world would be fairly dull without morons.

 

[Nasadus]

What's that supposed to mean?Are you saying that he was lying intentionally?What good would that do.This is all so messed up.George W. Bush lied about what he actually saw,why?

 

[The359]

Considering the mass panic of that day, the President saying that he saw the plane hitting rather then saying he saw the aftermath on the news is not something to really read into. Especially since he was being asked questions and not reading a speech, and thus was trying to think on his feet. You and everyone else would make similar mistakes.

 

[1X83Z]

Imagine if you were on that plane - any of them - and the absolute horror and panic you must've felt, not just at being hijacked, but at realising your eventual fate. Fast-forward today and here we've got people claiming it never even happened. Each and every one of the people who say this are assholes, and don't even deserve to be spouting their opinions on a public forum, let alone in real life. People have died here - thousands of people. It's actual human life. Shut the **** up about the ****ing conspiracy theories.

 

[daan]

I've seen footage of an F4-E Phantom hitting a reinforced nuclear bunker at 650mph. The plane was atomised - turned to dust. The only remnants recognisable as "plane" were the wingtips, as the plane was wider than the bunker.

And here it is

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

 

[Famine]

See?

D'oh! Great minds, blah blah blah.