Longinius 1 Posted March 7, 2002 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm Anyone that can explain it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted March 7, 2002 Spooky! Is this our first Sept 11th conspiracy theory? I certainly am no expert but it sure seems to me a plane doesn't just vanish no matter how hard it hits. Do we know these photos are from the 11th and not after cleanup has started. Anybody else know of any corroborating evidence? Or is this another wind up site? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 7, 2002 Hmm... That gives me to think. They have as far as I know really never shown any wrecked parts of the plane. And I can`t believe a whole plane simply vanishes. Even if it explodes fully tanked... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Well, I doubt they would have managed to remove every major part of wreckage with the building still burning, and you can see fire in some of the photos. And no, it is surely not one of the first theories but definatly one of the most interesting since it seems to make sense. Atleast until someone explains what happened to that plane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 7, 2002 If it WAS a truck filled with explosives and it was a suicide attack with it (e.g. guy drives as near as he gets and then blews himself up with a ton of C4), maybe the US government is hiding the truth, because of the blame that someone could so easily hit their highest security complex. Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Yeah and considering that those two boeings that hit the WTC went straight through the concrete towers and the explosion mushroomed from the other side... How the hell did this boeing only manage to collapse the ground floor of one ring in a narrow spot without charring the lawn outside? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 Stop fantasizing. Scroll down to the sixth pic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vir 0 Posted March 7, 2002 Theres one problem with that though: there were 4 aircraft, not 3. Where did the fourth one go if not there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vir @ Mar. 07 2002,12:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Theres one problem with that though: there were 4 aircraft, not 3. Where did the fourth one go if not there?<span id='postcolor'> Two into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and the 4th in Pennsylvania, not far from Pittsburgh, if I'm not mistaken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Those are awfully small pieces of debris, considering the plane is pretty big. Where is the rest of it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 1 sentence eyewitness account of Pentagon crash and pic here.. Scroll down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Makes you wonder. As most skyscrapers, WTC was made of steel reinforced concrete. And those two planes just plowed straight through. And when a same kind of plane hits the Pentagon, just a bit of damage... What kind of walls does that place have? Do they have chobham lining inside the walls or what? I wouldn't be surprised... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 One of the arhitects of the WTC was thoroughly interviewed several months ago and said that the WTC was not built to withstand a fully fuel laden 767 hitting it at excessive speed. He also theorized how the heat of the burning jet and fuel weakened the buildings tubular metal structure, which would have caused the towers to collapse under their own weight. The portion of the Pentagon hit had previously undergone major rennovation. One of the things rennovated was the addition of reinforcement against missile attack. I read this recently but I do not recall where. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted March 7, 2002 This theory is kinda stupid,seeing how it's a 737 that crash in the pentagon,not an 757(which is bigger).Plus if you go to question 4.do you know why they are laying gravel and dirt ? Soo they can get heavier vehicles in.Like a dump truck,meat wagon(?).What if it would have rain ,when they had dump trucks and other heavy vehicles ? They would get stuck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Yes foxer, I agree with you on that one. Still, where IS the plane? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted March 7, 2002 was also sad to hear that only one of th wtc towers were insured because of the cost, seeminlgy it was said that the odds of both towers being destroyed were to phenominal =[[[[ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 Another account, with a paragraph about a firefighter eyewitness who ducked under a vehicle when he saw the plane coming in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 07 2002,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes foxer, I agree with you on that one. Still, where IS the plane?<span id='postcolor'> A piece of it can be seen on the Pentagon lawn in the pic I mentioned earlier in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 07 2002,12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This theory is kinda stupid,seeing how it's a 737 that crash in the pentagon,not an 757(which is bigger).<span id='postcolor'> It was a 757, as documented everywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 7, 2002 There should be more witnesses. The plane had to fly across a freeway before it hit the Pentagon, right? At least I remember so from tv... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted March 7, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 07 2002,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He also theorized how the heat of the burning jet and fuel weakened the buildings tubular metal structure, which would have caused the towers to collapse under their own weight.<span id='postcolor'> I also saw they were renovating the WTC towers or something ( was on a documentary about how it was possible the towers collapsed )and they had removed the protective fire materials from the metal structure on some floors, i think it was on some floors where the fire raged. If it had been on, they still would ve collapsed, but maybe more people would ve gotten out  I also find it strange the pictures show not more pieces of the plane, but why would they lie about it ?? Even if it wasn t a plane and just a truck, an attack is an attack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vir 0 Posted March 7, 2002 5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 07 2002,055)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and the 4th in Pennsylvania, not far from Pittsburgh, if I'm not mistaken.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, i know... i was supporting the 'a plane hit the pentagon' story. Also, i watched an in depth show on the history channel about how WTC was built, and why they fell... the only parts i remember were that the jet fuel explosion melted the steel supports, and the shaking was equal to a 7 (i think) on the richtor(sp?) scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 7, 2002 More and more eyewitness testimony. You think no one was outside any area of the Pentagon within a radius of 10 miles?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted March 7, 2002 I think this is strange and fascinating. The photos certainly seem to defy expectations but until somebody comes up with a theory for what did happen to the fourth plane... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted March 7, 2002 Yes. Well, we have all these articles with eyewitnesses we cannot talk to ourselves and we have all these pictures NOT showing the plane (except for a small piece of what looks to be the outer shell of an airplane). I want to know what happened to the rest of the plane. Are you telling me that when a plane crashes like that the law does not get scorched, there are no major pieces of wreckage and no heaps of plane debris visible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
