Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by leemo

I saw the result of an accident on the M1 a while back, some car was about four foot long after crashing into a truck that looked as though it had jackknifed and ended up lengthwise across the entire carriageway. I wouldn't expect to see much left of a plane that enters a building.

I saw the result of a Porsche 9/11 going through a Security Box (sadly with the officer in it) at about 150Mph. The only thing left bigger than a shoe was the engine block.

Quite expected.

But the car didn't explode in a ball of flames, then keep traveling a hundred metres, punching its way through dozens of concrete and steel columns and six re-enforced concrete walls before concertinaing.

An airliner, basically an aluminium tube, wouldn't have a chance of concertinaing as it (purportedly) went through those walls and a small forest of concrete pillars, leaving a neat pile of bodies/parts exactly where the nose cone was alleged to be.

This s what happens to airliner nose cones on impact, even gentle ones, let alone smashes at 500mph as alleged.

Yes quite, I see what you mean....

^^ So what's that supposed to prove, that you can flatten a beer can with your bare hands, tough guy?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by Shrinking Violet

wasnt the manoeuvre that the plane that hit the pentagon so difficult even an experienced pilot would have struggled? how would a novice do it then? practicing on a SNES?

Yes and pilots train to crash every day... He wasn't training to maneuver he was trained to crash ffs, one time....

Now, tell us all about how ya can get to flying school and train to crash, dipshit.

My gawd you're as thick as pig shit. Your name calling suggests that you see the reality of mine and others positions here and you become defensive to ward off your true beliefs that it happened exactly as reported..

Originally Posted by ENT

^^ So what's that supposed to prove, that you can flatten a beer can with your bare hands, tough guy?

Well what it proves is that you've no clue of reality..

What your last two posts prove is that you're a hypocrite, one rule for you ( you can insult who you like) and another for other folk.

PS
Your faux psychology is a load of bollix, cuz.

According to the official story a load of bodies/parts ended up in the nose cone area of the debris field within the Pentagon.

Dunno how that could happen, all the seats break loose with the passengers all strapped in and then they all crashed through the galley area, on through the bulkhead into the cockpit all the way down from the tail end they were supposed to be in.

Airliner nose cones were made of light materials, aluminium alloy and synthetic composites, the framing is often of titanium and carbon fibre, designed to withstand air pressure, but not impact.

Below are a few more pics of damaged nose cones, damaged through either birdstrike or just a light bump into another object,
Not very tough, not designed to withstand impact at any speed.














Below is a diagram of the airliner's main framework.



The passengers of the allegedly hijacked Boeing were all herded up into the rear, but somehow many bodies/parts were allegedly found in the nose cone area.

Try and work out how those parts are supposed to have ended up where they were claimed to have been found.

^ Odd isn't it?

The passengers in the rear, well behind the wings, several bulkheads where toilets, galley and so on were, all those made of titanium alloy framing, as were the door and window frames.

The fuel tanks, filled to half capacity allegedly would have exploded (as pictured) on impact, effectively blasting back towards the rear of the plane, yet according to the published diagrams, human remains were found in the nose cone and the bulk of the rest found aft of that in diminishing quantities, but none where the aft fuselage and tail section ought to have been!

Really odd.

And the port side engine just completely disappeared while the starboard one somehow diminished in size.

Oh, another thing, Boeings are built in sections, nose cone, forward fuselage, central wing section (the strongest part), aft fuselage and tail section.

^ Once again ENT displays his terrible grasp of physics...

Take an aircraft that weighs somewhere in the range of 200-250,000 pounds and run it into a building at ~500mph. You better fvcking believe that any loose objects in the rear of will end up in the front.

What? They all move right through the bulkhead walls and galley area and through an other bulkhead wall, through into the cockpit, but end up full stop in the nose cone,....after that nose cone is supposed to have punched right through six concrete and brick walls?


No way.

Firstly, there is no way the plane could have traveled at 500mph as claimed at sea level, it would have broken apart before reaching the Pentagon.

So assuming that it was travelling at 200 mph, which is possible, it would still smash itself to bits, ripped up as it went through those six walls and a forest of concrete columns.

Wings would have snapped off at the facade and exploded at that point, burning fuel covering the aft fuselage through to the tail, which would typically have dislodged, spilling out passengers.

Compressive force generated as the plane impacts would have started the movement of anything aft, forward, I agree, but not carry most of the passengers through the central bullhead section and all the way through into the cockpit. A few, maybe, the rest would have been trapped up against the central bulkhead area, where the wings join the fuselage.

The main bulk of the plane (not caught up in the pillars would also have traveled in the same direction and ended up compressed in the nose cone area, which didn't happen, as there would have been far more debris blown through the sixth wall the plane allegedly punched through.

What? They all move right through the bulkhead walls and galley area and through an other bulkhead wall, through into the cockpit, but end up full stop in the nose cone,....after that nose cone is supposed to have punched right through six concrete and brick walls?

The nose cone didn't punch thru the wall. It crumpled and the mass of the plane behind it kept coming and it too crumpled until this mass of crumpled plane parts driven by the speed of the plane punched thru the wall. A giant pile of crumpled trash that was once an airplane punched thru the wall

Originally Posted by ENT

What? They all move right through the bulkhead walls and galley area and through an other bulkhead wall, through into the cockpit, but end up full stop in the nose cone,....after that nose cone is supposed to have punched right through six concrete and brick walls?

The whole aircraft compressed and disintegrated as it passed through the building, dissipating energy as it did so. That's why it finally stopped. Many of the passengers were only identified by tissue samples.

Suggest you read the history of F1 safety if you want to know how energy dissipation has been used to reduce trauma to the driver.

But you'll probably call that bullshit as well, because you're fucking thick.

If you look at the column patterns on the ground floor, you'll see that the columns were still standing from roughly half way along the the line of trajectory of the aircraft through to the punched out 6th wall.

Whatever it was that moved through that hole also by passed the columns still standing there, there's not a gap big enough between them at that angle for anything the width of that punch hole to get through.

Nope, I don't buy the idea that everything compressed and went through that punch hole, the compressive force would have been dissipated and scattered by the columns in the way, no single large mass got through.

there is no way a plane could do such a hole,

but a missile ?

And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go.

The ignorant or easily led go round and round.

Them that know found the conclusion long ago.

Notice that the forum fishwife LD the tango queen and other hysterical denialists don't have a sound explanation of what actually happened at the Pentagon.

There are a few reasoned comments coming from the pro-official story members, but in the main the denialists resort to humbug, distortion, lies and ad hominem attacks in attempts to ridicule an opponent, without any logical argument in their replies. Just scroll through the thread (it's quite an interesting one) and check that fact out.

So what indeed caused all that damage at the Pentagon?

Judging by all the evidences, witness accounts, and theories so far proposed, nothing supports the contention that AA Flt 77 caused the damage. There's no evidence of that airliner being at the Pentagon that day at all.

The evidence does point to an aircraft, a flying object, of some form striking the Pentagon, as seen (partially) in three video clips so far, suggesting that a small and extremely fast airborne object similar to a missile struck the Pentagon.

However, that was not the only cause of the widespread destruction caused or seen there that day.

There was also a primary explosion before the large secondary explosion caught on camera. That small white primary explosion exhibited debris scatter, and it too was caught on the Pentagon cctv video released by the FBI. That needs further investigation.

There are numerous witness accounts plus photographic evidence of damage caused by an internal explosion or explosions at the Pentagon, which caused the first floor concrete ceiling to be blown upwards into the office space above, just a few metres into the Pentagon building, and the much vaunted "punch hole" damage claimed to have been caused by the nose cone of an airliner.

Those explosions all added to the damage seen at the Pentagon that day.

Finally, the engineers at the Pentagon then collapsed the damaged section around half an hour after it first caught fire, the fire having been doused there within 10 minutes of the firefighters started applying foam and water to the fire.

I think it's time to take a look at what constituted all those reported explosions, and what propellants/fuels/explosives and trigger methods were used.

I think it's time to commit yourself to the Mental Health unit of the nearest hospital. And stop drinking alcohol and consuming marijuana....it makes your condition worse.

Your understanding of physics is primary school level. Have you ever corresponded or even spoken to ANY real physicists about any of this ?

Possible aircraft type that fits the profile suggested by some witnesses and the image in the leaked video of a missile hitting the Pentagon.