Find the airplane

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most airplane crashes I have seen pictures from have either had...

1. craters with debri around

2. fairly large chunks of airplane (like parts of the cabin, engines, wings etc)

3. debri strewn over a large area

Now, with a plane impacting a solid object you wouldn't get a big area of debri and the plan would in all likelyhood get smashed. But I still have a hard time seeing that it would nearly disappear.<span id='postcolor'>

In the ariplane crashes you've seen, the crew would have been trying to keep the plane in the air and slow down the descent as much as possible, not ram it into an object at mas speed

Check this video of a MiG-29 crash

MiG-29 at Paris Air Show

sure it's a small fighter, and I'm sorry I couldn't find a better quality video on the net, but try and find any large pieces after it flew nose first into the ground. After it crashed you can't even tell it used to be a plane. Same goes for whatever was left of the Boeing embeded in the Pentagon.

AvonLady: You should be hired as an official investigator do you know that?

[Longinius 1]

"In the ariplane crashes you've seen, the crew would have been trying to keep the plane in the air and slow down the descent as much as possible, not ram it into an object at mas speed"

Well, I have seen pictures of aircraft hitting mountainsides at high speeds. There was still quite alot of debri. And if this plane hit the Pentagon at max speed it would either...

1. have come in at a pretty steep angle thus creating a fair crater

2. have come in almost level with the ground in which case it would be very hard to just hit the first floor without leaving traces all over the neatly trimmed lawn.

At any rate it is interesting that a plane can just disappear like that.

[LordZach 0]

what about the structure of the pentagon? it was specifically built and re-enforced over the years to withstand MISSILE attacks. its quite possible the metals actually became compressed and sent like shrapnel into the building. i think if the plane would have crashed somewhere else the media would have caught on? maybe a flaming wreck in the middle of washington DC would be an indicator to them. the fact is they didnt need to have any other plans of attack. the original target was the white house remember? i find it hard to believe hundreds of eye-witnesses are not being truthful

[JAP 2]

Yeah i saw that too. Damn they were though. The max they could get out was a small dent if i can remember well.

[JAP 2]

Why don t they just dig up a sat. image seconds before impact and end this discussion.

BTW, in most airplane crashes there usualy is an explosion of some kind, maybe that s why they find more pieces then ?

Just a thought

Oh and a mountain isn t hollow, maybe thats why you find more debris in comparison to the pentagoncrash. The mountain can t be penetrated the way a building would. I guess, who am i

[LordZach 0]

no jap, youre right. the debris flew all over the place. the VELOCITY forced it through the building. there is no place in the mountain for it to go except everywhere the mountain is not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Longinius,

I highly advise you to see psychiatrist

Let's say it was a truck that blew itself up. Then why the heck did no one see it?

[rpc007 0]

and whoever was talking about "what happened to the 4th plane" go do a search for it or "todd beamer" and youll get the story... i dont feel like typing it

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ Mar. 07 2002,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and whoever was talking about  "what happened to the 4th plane" go do a search for it or "todd beamer" and youll get the story... i dont feel like typing it<span id='postcolor'>

if youre talking about me i know about the 4th one i was saying there were 4 planes lost, if a truck was responsible for the pentagon attack i dont think the DC plane just vanished

[Longinius 1]

"I highly advise you to see psychiatrist"

hey...I am not the one calling myself 'Ralph Wiggum' here.... : )

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey...I am not the one calling myself 'Ralph Wiggum' here....<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe he really is Ralph Wiggum.

I think I need to see my hairdresser.

[Wobble 1]

remember, there was a MASSIVE and very hot fire when that plane hit.. and most of the plane aside froma few parts was made of light aircraft aluminium.. which melts ar a relativley low temp..

oh and you notice there are 2 tracks through the side.. those are where the engines went.. the engines are the heaviest and most solid part of the plane.

[Akira 0]

I've seen plenty of aircraft disintegration pictures (a sick hobby/study of mine) where there is VERY litte debris, and NO crater. Witness accounts of the clean up saying the largest piece of the plane they found was no longer than a foot (.33 meters for you Europeans...hehe).

Also remember the video of the planes hitting the WTC? No flaming plane or fuselage came flying out the other side. In fact if you remember little chunks came flying out. These planes were FULLY fueled. An explosion that massive would rip any aluminium body apart. Plus remember the STEEL supports of the WTC buckled from the heat of the fire causing the collapse. That give you an idea of the temperatures involved. The Pentagon was MUCH sturdier in construction than the WTC, designed to withstand missile strikes and atomic blasts (at one point....debatable). A plane hitting it would make damage, but would certainly not be some devastating blow everyone expects.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 07 2002,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also remember the video of the planes hitting the WTC? No flaming plane or fuselage came flying out the other side.<span id='postcolor'>

Just for the record, there were pictures at the time of 1 engline that landed upright on the street and part of a landing gear, including a tire, that also came down.

But, yes, that's about it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I highly advise you to see psychiatrist"

hey...I am not the one calling myself 'Ralph Wiggum' here.... : )<span id='postcolor'>

hhmmm....i sense that you are jealous of me eating all the glues and leaving none for you.

[LordZach 0]

i wish i was a viking in my sleep...

ok end simpsons moment

[rpc007 0]

they just released some securit camera photos from pentagon (from the outside) when the jet crashes into the side and shows the fireball coming out, and in a little bit they are going to release anotehr security camera video where you can see the plane hitting the building

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rpc007 @ Mar. 07 2002,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">they just released some securit camera photos from pentagon (from the outside) when the jet crashes into the side and shows the fireball coming out, and in a little bit they are going to release anotehr security camera video where you can see the plane hitting the building<span id='postcolor'>

Where can i see that video ?

[rpc007 0]

i saw it on some news channel, either Fox News or CNN, and they showed it all calm then suddenly a big fireball, this was the angle that was just around the corner or something, could see the fireball but no plane, the FBI has a video where u see the plane come in and hit it and they are supposed to release it soon i think

[John C Flett 0]

I have to take my hat off to whoever created the original site. This is really the basis of great showmanship ( even if that was not their intention ). Expectation and misdirection. We expect to see a plane and when its not there a hint of conspiracy theory and the mind fills in all the wrong blanks.

I can believe that the plane disintegrated on an intelectual level but my gut still feels there should be big bits of it to see. The problem lies in the TOTAL absence of the plane, ie. if it didn't come down here we need a theory for where it did vanish to. Unless we're to believe that there never was a fourth plane.

I can see this one running for a long time yet. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[Wobble 1]

well you can rule out a truck bomb.. because if you look there are 2 distinct tracks which go through the building and a burnt area in the middle.. a truck bomb COULD NOT cause this.. what could and did cause these 2 holes were the aircraft's engines.. the engines are the most solid and heavy part of the AC they are like missles..

[Longinius 1]

I saw a series of pictures taken by a security camera just now, at this site http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,137840,00.html

Its in Swedish but you can still see the pictures ofcourse.

Problem is, there really isn't much to see. I can barely make out a pale figure coming from the right, extremely low. And that must be the aircraft ofcourse. It is still impressive that it can just disappear like that after impact though. Or rather, scary, not impressive.

[Deus Ex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (stealth squirrel @ Mar. 07 2002,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">look im an engineering student, yes a student NOT an expert but still, the power,force and energy involved in these crashes is simply phenomenal, the planes that hit the twin towers could easily have atomised themselves,simply disintergrating,and then once the towers collapsed they would have been crushed and twisted and sheared bwyond recognition so no large amount of debris can seriously be found

As for the Pentagon, this is the center of the American military. America is the most powerful country on earth and one of the most technologically advanced. The Pentagon would have had a ridiculous amount of armour using th newest and most sophisticated alloys and polymers. So a plane hiting the Pentagon could have Atomisied itself, because objects holding a great deal of potential energy when impacting upon a very hard or specialy mad ematerial can simply disintegrated and it IS possible that htis reaction could have spread to the wings and they would have folded into the plane and been atomised by the fire and the force of the impact.<span id='postcolor'>

I was gonna say the same thing you were gonna say, its a good thing that i read all the posts though. But yea, i was thinking since they just got done upgrading the pentagons structure/armor, if a plane did crash it definatly, the plane would be in litteraly peices.

hmm i personaly dont know what to make of all this...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 08 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I saw a series of pictures taken by a security camera just now, at this site http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,137840,00.html

Its in Swedish but you can still see the pictures ofcourse.

Problem is, there really isn't much to see. I can barely make out a pale figure coming from the right, extremely low. And that must be the aircraft ofcourse. It is still impressive that it can just disappear like that after impact though. Or rather, scary, not impressive.<span id='postcolor'>

WoW! Is the plane the blurry white object to the right of the right-hand yellow toll barrier? He must have come in with his landing gear down! He's just above the ground!

[Longinius 1]

That blur must be the plane.... So I say fuck TOP GUN thats an ace pilot.