BMW Luxury Touring Community - A 9-11 coverup??

dshealey

May 15th, 2006, 3:09 pm

David, David, David. Didn't you snopes check this? This is old news. LOL!!!

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Well, the Snopes statements and pictures are just as sketchy, and the only question from the first article that it really answers is the size of the hole in the third ring wall. Yes, I can see an engine doing that.

BUT: it certainly does seem that the wings would have done a lot of damage to the walls on each side of the outer wall, and left large parts of them outside. If that was a wing mounted engine that punched through with enough impact to leave a nice round hole on the SIXTH wall it had to pass through, where is it's entry hole on the outside wall? In the films of the two planes hitting the WTC, the wings made perfect outlines of themselves in the walls. The Pentagon walls were far more solid, but seems that the wings would have left a lot of damage, and left parts of them on the ground at the base of the outer wall. No way they would have just folded back and been "pulled in" with the fuselage.

If the plane hit the ground before the wall, why is the lawn in such good shape in front of it. If the plane hit further back and bounced, the initial shots would seem to show too little damage higher up.

Hey, I am not defending any viewpoint here, but they did a good job of raising questions you have to admit, and the Snopes article did nothing to address any but one of them that I can see.

I guess this one will be discussed decades later just like the Kennedy assassination theories.

UncleRock

May 15th, 2006, 4:23 pm

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

I got this from a friend, saying the film has been pulled from other web sites.
Hmmmmm. Does raise some serious questions.
Run the fund raiser declare martial law and set aside the constitution. Thats the plan, didn't work in the first trade center bombing, or OKC, or 9-11 so we move on to the Bush Bird Flu. :(
Snopes like most media is under their thumb. One of the first planks in the Commine manifesto is gain control of all the media.
If they can put it over on the American Public, what does that say for the American Public? :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Rock

k12steve

May 15th, 2006, 7:12 pm

QUICK!!! Whose got the roll of tinfoil???????????

:D :D

BillyOmaha

May 15th, 2006, 7:59 pm

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

I got this from a friend, saying the film has been pulled from other web sites.
Hmmmmm. Does raise some serious questions.David, David, David,
It's time for you to get back on a bike. You've got WAY TOO MUCH time on your hands. :)

.

Zotter

May 15th, 2006, 9:04 pm

Yea, and TWA flight 800 was shot down by a SAM as well. Uh-huh.

STEBS

May 15th, 2006, 9:09 pm

Well, the Snopes statements and pictures are just as sketchy, and the only question from the first article that it really answers is the size of the hole in the third ring wall. Yes, I can see an engine doing that.

BUT: it certainly does seem that the wings would have done a lot of damage to the walls on each side of the outer wall, and left large parts of them outside. If that was a wing mounted engine that punched through with enough impact to leave a nice round hole on the SIXTH wall it had to pass through, where is it's entry hole on the outside wall? In the films of the two planes hitting the WTC, the wings made perfect outlines of themselves in the walls. The Pentagon walls were far more solid, but seems that the wings would have left a lot of damage, and left parts of them on the ground at the base of the outer wall. No way they would have just folded back and been "pulled in" with the fuselage.

If the plane hit the ground before the wall, why is the lawn in such good shape in front of it. If the plane hit further back and bounced, the initial shots would seem to show too little damage higher up.

Hey, I am not defending any viewpoint here, but they did a good job of raising questions you have to admit, and the Snopes article did nothing to address any but one of them that I can see.

I guess this one will be discussed decades later just like the Kennedy assassination theories.

David,

Don't let everyone tell you this is all bush*t and you going senile or un American as some as said to me, way to many inconsistencies here, a 757 never hit the Pentagon or their would have been evidence of it, if there is evidence of it how come the Amercan people have not seen it. I find it amazing that most of America can be brain washed so easily. I'm 46 yrs old and by no means senile or un American. They raise some very good questions in several of these conspiracy films with no films from the government to back up what their position is, as you said this will be discussed for decades with no answers, it really makes you wonder why films from around Washington have not been released.

dshealey

May 15th, 2006, 10:33 pm

I had not even thought about this incident much at all until I got that link. I certainly do remember a lot of confusion in the media at the time, totally unlike all the other things that happened that day. I watched the video a few times, and did some more web searching this evening on the subject.

I am not the type of person who believes conspiracy things, and have pretty much taken the news media's take on things.

However, this one has a HUGE amount of questioning things on the web, and so far I can find almost NO acccounts of it being a 757 that are backed up by photos of parts, etc.

I believe it probably WAS a 757 as stated, but it sure is open for actual proof, one way or the other. None of the existing photos that I can find on the web support it, and I can see how many are constructing highly questioning theories on it.

One thing that is probably cause for this is that it was a government building, and photos not readily available. It was clamped down on really quick, and not much seems to be available to counter the conspiracy mongers, and that just gives them more reason to believe they are on to something.

Has anyone seen links or pictures that show actual 757 parts in the aftermath? A 757 cannot just evaporate!

BillyOmaha

May 15th, 2006, 11:30 pm

...I believe it probably WAS a 757 as stated, but it sure is open for actual proof, one way or the other. None of the existing photos that I can find on the web support it, and I can see how many are constructing highly questioning theories on it.

One thing that is probably cause for this is that it was a government building, and photos not readily available. It was clamped down on really quick, and not much seems to be available to counter the conspiracy mongers, and that just gives them more reason to believe they are on to something.

Has anyone seen links or pictures that show actual 757 parts in the aftermath? A 757 cannot just evaporate!Howdy David,
A couple of points on this:
1-I haven't seen any pictures of remnants of the two planes that were flown into the WTC Towers. Although I am confident that they have found some of the engine components when sifting the debris.
2-U.S. Attorney, Theodore Olson's wife, Barbara, was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon and he was in contact with her during the flight.
3-The plane "purported" to have flown into the Pentagon, a 757 full of fuel would have burned long enough and hot enough to have melted virtually every piece of metal except for some of the engine components.
4-If a U.S. Military plane had attempted to shoot down "the plane", then there are a few problems with that: 1-the air-to-air missiles could not possibly have cause that much destruction, 2-where did the actual 757 plane go with the passengers reported missing....including Ted Olson's wife and 3-the American public would have been unhappy about an accidental missile strike, but they would accept it far more graciously than they would a cover-up.

.

motorhead

May 16th, 2006, 1:38 am

UncleRock

May 16th, 2006, 8:00 am

A 757 cannot just evaporate!
Why not, the Fire warden (reliable source) that reported a plane being shot out of the air in SW PA did.
When he resurfaced the story had changed, but several people in town that he talked to at the store. Before getting yanked for (political re-education) National Security, tell a different story, along with that first pesky interview from the local country radio station.
Many questions remain, but the man is doing well for himself, traded his old Chevy for a Navigator, and his land mortgage is paid in full 18 years early! :confused:
Rock

rixchard

May 16th, 2006, 8:07 am

For a video that is being pulled from websites (by whom one wonders) it sure is easy to get a hold of a copy on the internet. Use Occams razor on this collection of conjectures and poor reasoning and see what happens.

tmgs

May 16th, 2006, 8:22 am

Well, the Snopes statements and pictures are just as sketchy, and the only question from the first article that it really answers is the size of the hole in the third ring wall. Yes, I can see an engine doing that.

BUT: it certainly does seem that the wings would have done a lot of damage to the walls on each side of the outer wall, and left large parts of them outside. If that was a wing mounted engine that punched through with enough impact to leave a nice round hole on the SIXTH wall it had to pass through, where is it's entry hole on the outside wall? In the films of the two planes hitting the WTC, the wings made perfect outlines of themselves in the walls. The Pentagon walls were far more solid, but seems that the wings would have left a lot of damage, and left parts of them on the ground at the base of the outer wall. No way they would have just folded back and been "pulled in" with the fuselage.

If the plane hit the ground before the wall, why is the lawn in such good shape in front of it. If the plane hit further back and bounced, the initial shots would seem to show too little damage higher up.

Hey, I am not defending any viewpoint here, but they did a good job of raising questions you have to admit, and the Snopes article did nothing to address any but one of them that I can see.

I guess this one will be discussed decades later just like the Kennedy assassination theories.
probably
did ya see the debris of the planes at the WTC?

ever seen a jet crash?

I have right next to our shop, there was this fast shing sound just as it hit then a BOOM! it was a small twin private, the biggest piece was only feet long and it was going slow on approach for landing and literraly fell out of the sky, there was basically nothing left of it

simongs

May 16th, 2006, 10:39 am

I watched a famous flyer die during an air show at SANG (MI) a few yrs ago, flying his T-31 I think it was (Korean war era trainer). He hit the runway at about 350 MPH at the bottom of a loop (too low). Only two whole pieces were left...the pilot in his seat and the engine, both bouncing down the runway.

They collected what was left of the plane in a pickup truck and it didn't take long...cause there was nothing left. The show started again one hour later.

I was there on 9-10/11 for work and luckily, had left the pentagon on 9-11 for a short job close by. There were some improvements made to the pentagon structure or the 9-11 plane would have gone right thru both sides versus just one. I'm not sure what else could cause that kind of destruction in that manner.

What I did think is that we were under a full scale attack, even though I didn't know about the towers until a little later. In fact, I was close to correct, no one knew we could land all the planes in the USA within an hour or we'd have seen a lot more destruction.

I'm not exactly the most trusting person with gov't either but....

regards...geo

CHIEF

May 16th, 2006, 11:38 am

Ron- The only ones that will be following this conspiracy (ha,ha) are you , David and Rock.

KBandit

May 16th, 2006, 11:47 am

the real deception took place AFTER 9/11. that's the sad part. sadder still: no one is being held criminally accountable.

dshealey

May 16th, 2006, 11:59 am

Ron- The only ones that will be following this conspiracy (ha,ha) are you , David and Rock.

Nope, I am not "following" it at all. From an engineering mind though, the link certainly raised some questions that are very difficult to answer.

hschisler

May 16th, 2006, 12:15 pm

I recall on 9/11 seeing early on-the-scene interviews with people near the Pentagon who saw the airplane hit the building. First-hand accounts, as it were.

Also, early reporting showed at least 2 security camera images (maybe it was tourist photos) of the plane flying in at tree-top level and hitting the building. I've seen nothing of these interviews or pictures since then, but they do (or did) exist. Could they have been doctored? Sure, why not; it's possible, I suppose.

That said, I do not suspect a conspiracy here. I do suspect that national security interests can be justifiably served by not continuing to show these interviews and pictures. They might, for example, show additional weaknesses in the Pentagon structure (this is conjecture on my part) which we would not want to keep replaying on TV.

Zotter

May 16th, 2006, 1:26 pm

DoD is releasing the film, today at 1:00est that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml

That link is to the story announcing this release - should be a link to the film or the site that'll have it, I hope. I can't get to it from here for some reason. I'm hearing mention of the I-net having widespread issues today.

And while we're at it - here's a site that effectively debunks many of the '9/11' coverups described in the 'Loose change' movie.

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

UncleRock

May 16th, 2006, 4:51 pm

"No evidence suggests that. 95% of the plane was recovered near Shanksville. Positive ID was made of all passengers. Personal effects of nearly all were recovered. Large parts of the plane were recovered, including most of one engine."
So much for the entire plane going away, which is it?
Rock

BUGKILLER

May 16th, 2006, 4:56 pm

David,

I am with you on somethings not right ...:(

But so you understand what an aircraft going 500 mph does hitting a solid reinforced wall, check out this link:www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

Or. just surf for: F4 hitting wall

*** at 500 mph, the entire aircraft right too the tail never slows down and gets vaporized .... WOW !!

I would like to see it after the dust settles. I don't know about vaporized but I am sure it would have mushroomed and then flattened like a bullet hitting concrete. Is there any footage of the crash inspection? It was very cool non the less. Thanks for the post. :D

Woolly

May 16th, 2006, 4:59 pm

" 95% of the plane was recovered near Shanksville.

Rock

How far is Shanksville from the (alleged(?)) impact site at the Pentagon??

dshealey

May 16th, 2006, 9:21 pm

DoD is releasing the film, today at 1:00est that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Oh yeah, that answered a lot. :(

Just watched them, only one frame has the nose of A plane entering the right side of the frame, the next frame is flame. No way to identify what it was, certainly not what type.

I believe it was the plane it was purported to be, but there sure has been nothing I could find to actually prove it.

Of course I keep asking myself, IF it were to be any kind of coverup, just what would they want to cover? I cannot think of any plausable answer.

UncleRock

May 16th, 2006, 9:58 pm

How far is Shanksville from the (alleged(?)) impact site at the Pentagon??
The point I was making, they were both supposed to be going 350mph. How can 95% of one be recovered and almost none of the other?
Over here in the colonies we ask hard questions sometimes :D
Rock

NCoe

May 16th, 2006, 10:57 pm

Oh yeah, that answered a lot. :(

Just watched them, only one frame has the nose of A plane entering the right side of the frame, the next frame is flame. No way to identify what it was, certainly not what type.

I believe it was the plane it was purported to be, but there sure has been nothing I could find to actually prove it.

Of course I keep asking myself, IF it were to be any kind of coverup, just what would they want to cover? I cannot think of any plausable answer.

I agree that there is no plausable reason for a coverup. Besides which, anyone who thinks that anything like that could be covered up in today's climate in Washington has a screw loose.

TandemCyclist

May 16th, 2006, 11:07 pm

Of course I keep asking myself, IF it were to be any kind of coverup, just what would they want to cover? I cannot think of any plausable answer.

They would want to cover up the fact that our military "will" shoot down a civilian aircraft. How would this fly (pun intended) with the public. If they made a mistake, could we use the term friendly fire.

I am not allowed to divulge information (retired air traffic controller) about security measures taken on that day or since. But lets just say if a mistake was, or will be, made, would'nt "they" want to cover it up, so as not to shake up the economy. After all that (economy for those who always have trouble following me) is what "we" are all about.

Rick

BillyOmaha

May 17th, 2006, 10:14 am

They would want to cover up the fact that our military "will" shoot down a civilian aircraft. How would this fly (pun intended) with the public. If they made a mistake, could we use the term friendly fire.

I am not allowed to divulge information (retired air traffic controller) about security measures taken on that day or since. But lets just say if a mistake was, or will be, made, would'nt "they" want to cover it up, so as not to shake up the economy. After all that (economy for those who always have trouble following me) is what "we" are all about.

RickHowdy Rick,

I was on UAL flight #735 on April 21, 2006 when it was diverted to Denver as a result of a "bomb threat". I was well aware that the two F-16 that joined us were not there to merely "escort" us as announced. They were, obvious to anyone thinking logically about the situation, there to shoot the plane down if the pilot lost positive control and a population center was nearby.

As a passenger, along with the other passengers around me, this reality was understood and in a silent, but knowing way, accepted as the right approach to take.

If the U.S. Armed Forces had attempted to shoot down AA flight #77 on 9/11, I would certainly stand behind the men and women that made that call.....regardless of the actual result. But if they lied about it, then they should be punished severely. A process cannot be corrected if we fail to identify what actually happened.

In short, the only thing our Government has as a basis to govern, is the consent of the people. Lying about something that went wrong is the quickest way to shatter that trust and lose that consent.

ps: I'm not referring to covert operations, such as the recent NSA revelations, which are done to protect us from our adversaries. I'm talking about cover-ups, such as Watergate, Iran Contra, lying under oath about Oval Office Sex, which are to protect the "self serving" wrong doing of Government officials.

.

KBandit

May 17th, 2006, 10:25 am

Lying about something that went wrong is the quickest way to shatter that trust and lose that consent.

hullo billy,

i personally think that 9/11 was what it was. not buying it was anything other than a terrorist attack. but, with all due respect, i got a chuckle out of this comment.

you, uhhhh, HAVE seen the approval ratings lately, haven't ya?

dshealey

May 17th, 2006, 11:04 am

------------------
If the U.S. Armed Forces had attempted to shoot down AA flight #77 on 9/11, I would certainly stand behind the men and women that made that call.....regardless of the actual result. --------------.

I was thinking: The only reason to shoot down an airliner full of people is to keep it from going down in a heavily populated area, like DC. Would not make much sense to shoot one down already over DC. Then it hit me: What was the target? The offices of all the military big-wigs, all shouting "pull the trigger, NOW". :D :D