[cmonster1]

Thanks for posting these! Like many folks, I hadn't seen most of these. I can't fathom the hellish fire those people died in. Fuck that noise.

[redfox2045]

Okay, since this has turned into a debate about it couldn't do this. Let an Aerospace Engineer inform you conspiracy nuts so you can shut up. I have done countless computer and real world tests about planes hitting things, the Boeing 767 that was used on the trade center has an aluminum skinned fuselage with aluminum/titanium alloy mixed support beams along the bottom with a hollow mid section for passengers. The wings and tails are mostly hollow as well with the exception of the wings containing fuel lines and cables for the motors to control the pitch a yaw of the plane. The tail is similar however lacks the fuel lines having no engines. With that, I will now address all of your "facts" and disprove them on basic scientific knowledge you would know had you taken any time to learn it.

1: the lack of wing holes. These wings are soft, designed to flex under harsh conditions rather than be brittle (Under normal weather conditions) would not have made it far, especially the tips, which in the photo can be scene laying in a pile just outside of the hard stone pentagon, as would be expected of them. The base of the wing, which is reinforced to hold the weight, did penetrate, but not far, which is why you have a sort of half plane look. The other piece of wing tip laying in the lawn is from its stike with the trailer, again, thin aluminum would strip off and rip away upon a hard impact.

2: The "Small hole" you all address. This is NOT the impact point. This is the exit point of the debris as it cleared the walls of the pentagon. This is again, a predicted part of the impact based upon the design of the plane. If you study ballistics, in particular that of a shotgun with buck shot into a hard gel, you will notice the shot that strays slightly, will face resistance and shoot off of the path, while a tight cluster, will push all the way through, and make a clean exit. This is what happened here. The small pieces of the plane that were stripped away flew off in every direction inside of the building, while the small minority that stayed together would push through in a relatively clean hole. As the debris in the front takes the brute of the damage and begins to slow down, it is slammed into by the debris in the rear, pushing it further forward, and creating a tight pattern at the exit. This is why painted to either side of it is "Punch out" because the debris literally punched its way through. Again, a predictable reaction.

Lastly the missile claim: This one is simply stupid to even consider for a large number of reasons. The first being the shear scale: Any missile that would be large enough to create this much damage would have been impossible to carry on a jet or helo, which normally carry small arms designed to take out tanks, jets, or small outposts. The most common of these are the Hellfire, and Sidewinder air to surface missiles. These would have created the nice little entry hole if they had hit the outside where the plane supposedly hit, but not made it all the way through. Also, missiles are not designed to be strong. They feature thin fins for control at high velocity, so if they had clipped a light post, or the generator trailer, they would have spun themselves out of control and into the ground or god knows where, if they didn't completely destroy themselves upon impact. Secondly, they simply lack enough explosive power to do this kind of damage.

Now, I know several comments were made about bunker busters, which once again, a little knowledge goes a long way. During my time interning at WPAFB in Dayton Ohio, I did a small number of tests with bunker busters. The first thing I would like to point out is a bunker buster is a smart BOMB not a rocket or missile. This means it lacks any form of propulsion and uses only gravity. Therefore, the bomb would have had to drop at a very steep angle into the target, and again, would have created a MASSIVE hole in the target, and ground below it since it wouldn't have detonated until it was in the center of the Pentagon. This would then throw the debris upwards, since the blast wave would be directed down, hitting the ground, and bouncing back up and out, blowing the windows and walls out towards the road, and in every direction but inward. A bomb of any kind, dropped from an aircraft would have caused an internal explosion, sending all of the debris out. Where the pictures here show the debris heading inward.

And once again we come to scale. The only bombs in the US arsenal capable of such large scale destruction to a reinforced target such as this are a J-DAM 2,000lb bomb, which is a laser guided bomb, not capable of the entry angles we saw here. A Bunker Buster, which suffers the same problem, and a MOAB, which if dropped at a very low, fast altitude could achieve such an entry angle, but would have created a more outward focused debris field.

This brings us to our last possible unmanned ordinance capable of such a feat, the Surface to Surface missile. This would be something along the lines of a scaled down ICBM, capable of being launched from a ground area, to another ground based target. However, these are very hard to aim, very fragile, and very very easy to notice. A missile large enough to carry a warhead capable of this level of destruction would have to be almost 25m long. These missiles move very fast and sporadically, changing course on a dime as the computer calculates. This particular piece of ordinance has the best chance of achieving such a hit, but it is a long shot. Missiles of this kind are designed to travel at a high velocity for a short distance, then drop at a steep angle to the target, much like a Javelin missile system on a much larger scale. This means, that to make a shallow approach that would have been needed for the destruction of the Pentagon, would have been very risky because it would be jerking around a lot at low altitude. This could account for the light post being hit, but not possible for the trailer, as an impact that harsh would have obliterated the soft shell of this missile, most only being a centimeter thick or less. Also, these are rockets, they use a 2 stage liquid solid fuel engine to power themselves. These are massive engines that create a HUGE ball of fire out the back, and a massive trail of smoke. If you ever watch the space shuttle launch, it is similar to that. This trail would have been visible for miles for a very long time, and the ball of light would as well. Meaning most of DC could have seen this thing coming.

On the note of the wreckage: If you look closely, everything I would expect to see in a plane crash, is indeed there. Pictures 14 and 15 show the skinned tip of the wing, and the twisted piece of missing skin. This would have been ripped off when the plane hit the trailer, tearing away part of the skin, and ripping the rest free, which being heavier, would have continued further onto the loan under the forces of momentum. Pictures 22-24 show the rest of the wing, laying in a swept back position as they would have hit. As the plane went in, the ends would have been forced back until they ripped off, probably slamming into the building and bouncing back. If you look through the rubble, you can see the large supports in the wing, and the large pieces of fuel line that would have run the length of the wings. In Pictures 32 and 33 to the left you will notice a large piece of turbine from the internals of the engine. Once again outside of the building, since the wings would not have penetrated, the wing mounted engines would have been launched forward by momentum, slamming into the building, and ripping themselves apart as the heavier pieces, such as this steel turbine punched through the lighter aluminum and titanium pieces. The part with the sticker is an interesting piece because as you can see, it has marker on it. I believe this is the inspectors number of the fuel system, which would have been in the under part of the wing panels. This is probably a small portion of the wings skin that was peeled away upon contact with the trailer, or the light post, leaving it in the yard in decent shape as it was ejected BEFORE contact with the building. Most likely at the same time as the other chunk of wing. And again, the second picture from the bottom shows the disassembled turbine. At the far left, you can see the back half of the exit cone, where the air would be filtered down to create the thrust needed, and the front piece, is the first turbine center, obviously missing the fans. The piece jutting out would have a cap on it that is usually painted a spiral so you can watch it spin when the jet is running.

If anyone has anything else for me to debunk, PM me and I'll gladly contribute my Aerospace knowledge.

[redfox2045]

Also I forgot this in my rant, but thank you very much for the pictures, I've never seen any from 9/11 inside the buildings, or the bodies. Thank you very much.

[GNR]

Originally Posted by Billthegravedigger ↗

Look guys, to be honest at this point, I don't give a flying fuck who gets offended, and who does not. DEFINE INSIDE JOB, or shut the fuck up, because if you say you believe it was an inside job, you should be able to explain what it is you are talking about.

It's easy billyboy... there were two planes. Each one hit a tower. However: the second plane was not an airliner, it was another type of plane, I can only guess what type, but most heard AND visibly shown in different footage, it was a black or grey plane without any passenger windows. It was also believed to be smaller than the airliner they 'made' it to be. So no one can argue about there not being two planes that hit the twin towers.
Point two: MANY people that lived the terror that day say they have heard explosions, lineair explosions. BoomBoomBoomBoomBoom and bigger blasts. Not only random people, but policeofficers, firemen, doctors and rescuers. Those witness comments, together with later investigated proof by independable engineers, architects,... PROVE without any doubt the twin towers ànd tower 7 were brought down by explosives containing nanothermite (google what that is if you dont know). It was controlled demolition that brought down the towers, that undeniably fell down in their own footprint while 'natural' breakdowns would make the upper floors collapse to the side where the plane hit, and would make it fall down instead of implode. No discussion possible since there is more than enough footage available that próves that. The towers fell down vertically, and FAST. 11sec for the north tower, 9sec for the south one. Proving the buildings were imploded by structural damage of the colums inside. Colums that cannot even BEND without temperatures higher than 3750°F. An oxigen fed fire, like the burning towers contained, cannot exceed 700°F. It’s a fact. No discussion.
Point three: The 80 floors underneath the crash zone were superstrong and they had NO damage whatsoever. They are also designed to withstand a lot more damage than a plane or a fire. 9-11 was something like a book being thrown against a closet at high speed. The book can go through the closer-door, but it cannot bring down the whole closet. Maybe it’s a bad comparison but it proves my point, which is more than clear.
Point four: When the towers fell down, they turned to dust. There was nothing lèft to find in the rubble, nó-thing... no pieced of telephones, no deskspieces, no pieces of office chairs, NO-THING. That means ALL of that furniture, which is by rule fireproof, was vaporised by... tadaah... an explosion. Otherwise there would be SO much evidence of collapse you wouldnt even consider to be true. Or did you think the iron wheels of an office chair can turn to dust perhaps? Any piece of metal used in furniture, can crumple, bend, break, of be pressed together to a lump. But it can’t just disappear. Not without any help of something hot as hell.
Point five: Structural beams were blown out when the buildings collapsed, causing severe damage to other buildings up to 60ft away. That means they were blown out at 50 to 60 mph. Just the compression of air (of the floors collapsing) cannot make a steel beam burst out of a building that way. Again a proven fact by scientists and even simulated footage is available of such things on the internet.
Point six: other buildings, like wtc 3 and 5, were severly damaged by debris of the collapsing towers, and had raging fires on multiple floors. How come they did nót collapse? The twin towers came down because of the heat of the fires? But the other raging buildings did not? Hmm… strange don’t you think?
Point seven: You, Bill, are a liar and a cheat. I’ve seen about every thread about 9-11 and everywhere you are claiming to be a victim of the disaster that day, and you’re yapping about having pictures that nobody ever saw of the horrors you’ve seen. But over the 20months you have been posting here and there about them, and even starting up your own thread about it (which is closed down because you couldnt bring in any arguments against the rightful arguments given by others that you are a fraud), you have yet to show original images. On top of all of this, you swear a lot, you accuse a lot of other people and you use unethical namecalling to ‘take’ your right of your own truth.
Now, you having your own truth is fine, discuss it on this board even, but don’t go and be a bully about it. You don’t have a patent on ‘the truth’ nor are you able to prove others that you are a fraud. In the USA you are innocent until proven otherwise. I believe that more than enough people have proven that you are nothing more than an attentionwhore. Please end your membership on this board and lieve people at piece.

[Cassius]

This one is very personal. Thanks for the post and a fresh look at the aftermath. As much as I entertain my morbid curiosity around death it's another thing when you look at the charred corpses and wonder if that's so and so.

Thanks for the post and more so thanks for being respectful about it.

[GNR]

Originally Posted by pacha1 ↗

YOU MUST BE A FUCKIN RETARD IF YOU THINK THIS WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

FUCKIN ALWAYS IDIOTS EVERYWHERE YOU GO.

yeah, you're helping the case with idiot capital insults like this :) please comment more :)

[GNR]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

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

I dont see where anyone can even TRY to deny that it was a missile :) you must be reaaally traumatised if you believe it to be a plane. Hahahaha...

[GNR]

Originally Posted by vonjo27 ↗

I don't know. The controlled-demolition of the WTC 1,2, and 7, the missile at the Pentagon, the invisible plane in Shanksville, the oil wars, the policing of the world, and the complete destroying of our constitution (NDAA, CISPA, Patriot Act, etc) has me preoccupied. I'll just take your word on the Winter Garden, it yours!

you are just a hero man
there is just no argument left for the people that think the fairytale of terrorist bullying the US is true :D hahahaha... you are a national and global hero :D

[GNR]

Originally Posted by Billthegravedigger ↗

Perhaps because they were not HIGHRISES ? That ever cross your mind ? Tower one and two collapsed do to severe structural damage from the plane man, it's that simple. I PERSONALLY watched the NOrth Tower collapse and hit WTC # 7, it tore it all to hell. I watched that building lean to the South for over two hours, and I watched it burn out of controll for for hours, then collapse.

It did not come down in 6 seconds. The penthouse fell of frontwards to the south, the other parts came down 8 seconds later. That right there throws you 7 second theory right out the window.

1) you couldn't have seen building one collapse because building 2 collapsed first, making the dust cover the air in a BIG perimeter for at a long period. Building 1 collapsed only half an hour later when you were already blocks away from the tower 2 collapse.
2) that being said, you couldn't have seen the damage to tower 7 because you were too far away, obstructed by other buildings. And you'd have to walk around in a BIG stray to get to a southern point if you claim to have been on the north side first.
3) you keep coming with the same pictures again and again, than with arrows, than with you messing around on them... none of them prove that the pentagon was hit by a plane, and none of them prove you saw building 7 in a clear way, and ESPECIALLY none of them prove you were actually THERE...

Now, you can start calling me names again, or start showing the same pictures again... but please, do yourself a favour and don't. Instead, post me a few pictures that prove you were at least THERE that day. That would be a start, and a first.

[Ianforheisman]

So what happened to the people on the planes? They just disappeared? Missile my arse..