[vonjo27]

I will say though- My response to Chey was totally unnecessary. I didn't read what he wrote about not wanting any conspiracy discussion, or that it was even him who posted the pictures to begin with. I was completely wrong about that- I'm sorry. I just assumed he was "one of the herd" who actually believes the lies the government has been feeding us over the past decade concerning 9/11. I couldn't help myself. Seriously though, SORRY CHEY!!

[Billthegravedigger]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/gove...rs/part-4.html

Maybe you can help me, I keep looking at the picture, but I don't see a 757- maybe you can find it for me? Where in the world did it disappear to? It's got to be around here somewhere?

How much do you really know about planes ? They can reach the speeds close to the ground that you say is not possible. The key is they can not do it for an extended amount of time. You don't see a hole the size and shape of a plain ?

Look how the fire is spread out in the shape of a plane. That a quinky dink ? What would you expect it to look like ? No plane ? It was destroyed , and there were parts every where.

[Billthegravedigger]

[quoteMaybe you can help me, I keep looking at the picture, but I don't see a 757- maybe you can find it for me? Where in the world did it disappear to? It's got to be around here somewhere?
][/quote]

Consider this. I know our goverment did not stop 9/11. I we think we all know that by now. I have to say it was not a missle, it was a plane. They desinigrate in high angle, high speed impacts. There were plane parts in "plane" sight. Take a closer look at the pictures.

You say no body ? Or bodies ?

[Billthegravedigger]

What does that remind you of ? United 93 maybe ? Velocity. Read about it, it might surprise inin

[ebneter]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

For five hours, there was only a 16ft hole- too small for a 757.

Plus a bunch of damage off to the sides...

And the fuselage diameter of a 757 is about 18 ft -- it's a narrow-body airliner.

You know what I DON'T see? Tail sections, wing sections, BODIES, scuff marks on the grass where the plane supposedly touched down.

There is debris there, but at the speed the plane hit the wall, there wouldn't be much in the way of large pieces of airplane, never mind bodies.

Also, it is physically impossible for planes to reach the speed needed to disintegrate at such a low altitude.

That's simply false. The 757 isn't designed to fly at very high speeds at low altitudes, but if you get it up to high speed and drop down to low altitude it doesn't suddenly magically lose its airspeed. And the hijackers were not exactly super concerned about structural stability.

If a plane hit anywhere near the pentagon, you would find much more than a couple pieces of scrap metal.

I've said this to many people on these threads, many times: You really need to look at a lot of images of airplane crash sites. I have seen high-speed impact crashes that left less or smaller debris than this one did (Valujet in the Everglades comes to mind, as does the Turkish DC-10 in the Ermenonville Forest).

Are you aware of the multi-billion dollar anti-aircraft missile defense system the pentagon has? No non-military plane could even come with 10 miles of the pentagon without being intercepted.

Source, please?

[robot]

I think you're letting the angle of the video deceive you. And honestly, if you slow down the video enough, you can actually see the left wing in the explosion. Consider the speed of the plane - whether it was 350 or 500 mph doesn't make a difference b/c that's fast - then consider the plane's trajectory vs. the camera angle. Finally, look very carefully at the explosion -- for a second, I believe you are seeing the left wing. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the wings are full of fuel, right? So when the right wing collapsed in to the side of the plane (at 350-500 mph), there's your explosion, which looks to me as if it combusts/chain reacts across the plane all the way through to the left side - the left side where you see the wing sticking out just before hitting the building. There's a reason many keep showing the F4 Phantom hitting the reactor wall - the fuselage and everything else will collapse, disintergrate, explode, etc. quickly. But remember that test was purposefully filmed and the camera angles were dead focused on the plane.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/p...an_757traj.png

[QUOTE=vonjo27;2910244]I know quite a bit about planes, and I'm sorry- but you're completely wrong about the speed a plane can reach at such a low altitude. The air density is much to thick for these particular jet engines. And even if the jet engines produced enough power, which they don't, controlling the plane would be impossible- that is if the plane wouldn't break completely apart, which it probably would. Think of crashes where planes fall nose down from 30k feet- the planes, though severely damaged, remain more in tact than what we see in these pictures. Tail sections, wing sections, etc. http://listverse.files.wordpress.com...30crash-lg.jpg

[vonjo27]

Originally Posted by ebneter ↗

That's simply false. The 757 isn't designed to fly at very high speeds at low altitudes, but if you get it up to high speed and drop down to low altitude it doesn't suddenly magically lose its airspeed.

Umm..... that's EXACTLY what happens, but there's nothing magical about it- it's physics.
I don't understand why sheeple are in such denial. Why do you defend a disgustingly corrupt government? Why are we Americans the only ones who can't see the truth behind our country's evil. Everyone else does.

[robot]

I could have stopped watching at 9:37 ... that not the trajectory of the plane - it didn't fly a straight path in to the building. If I'm following correctly what most are saying about the trajectory - when the right wing folded in to the plane, igniting and exploding the fuel that chain reacts across to the left wing, it makes perfect sense that the outside of the building would suffer most of the fire scarring (look at how black it is from the 8600 gallons of remaining burning fuel scarring the outside of the building).

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Here's a good clip from an awesome documentary- I suggest you watch the whole thing, you might learn something!

[robot]

We're not defending the government, we're discussing the type of projectile that hit the pentagon. And it happened to be flight 77.

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

Umm..... that's EXACTLY what happens, but there's nothing magical about it- it's physics.
I don't understand why sheeple are in such denial. Why do you defend a disgustingly corrupt government? Why are we Americans the only ones who can't see the truth behind our country's evil. Everyone else does.

[robot]

No, I'm not aware of the missile defense system that protects the Pentagon, is it a strategically defensive priority? I think not. In this nuclear age, DC is not defensible. That's why there's NORAD and why the president and cabinet either go underground or airborne. Your pulling shite out of your arse now just to get a rise.

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

I haven't gone anywhere other than the grocery store. Your pictures don't prove a thing. The roof didn't even collapse until almost 5 hours later. For five hours, there was only a 16ft hole- too small for a 757. But lets look at your pictures- notice anything? Where the wings supposedly hit, what do you see? I see several windows STILL IN TACT!!!! You know what I DON'T see? Tail sections, wing sections, BODIES, scuff marks on the grass where the plane supposedly touched down. Also, it is physically impossible for planes to reach the speed needed to disintegrate at such a low altitude. If a plane hit anywhere near the pentagon, you would find much more than a couple pieces of scrap metal. Listen to eyewitnesses, workers, even NEWS REPORTERS ( ) who were there and said that they saw NO evidence whatsoever of a plane hitting anywhere near the pentagon. Have you even seen the video? Have you seen the plane hit? Are you aware of the multi-billion dollar anti-aircraft missile defense system the pentagon has? No non-military plane could even come with 10 miles of the pentagon without being intercepted. I could go on for days about the pentagon alone- but I'll leave it there. Listen, I was like you- the last thing I wanted to believe was that my beloved government was capable of pulling off false-flag operations, but the truth is, they are much more common than anyone might think. It sucks- my brother and brother in-law have both been deployed several times to Iraq/ Afghanistan because of these lies- it really hits home. Believe me, I'm looking for any conclusive, indisputable piece of evidence that proves "them" right- but unfortunately, after 6 years of searching constantly, I haven't found a single thing.
Take care.