Complete Proof (NEW, never seen): Pentagon

[xblackdogx]

starting fresh b/c i don't want any useless shit that will sway people in the other threads:

Picture 1: look at the pieces on the ground

Picture 2: i think we can all agree the wingspan of a 757 is longer than this truck
(where is the damage of the wings?)

COMPLETELY NEW
3 & 4 go together: previous pictures of the "crash" that including myself have shown are indeed of a different part of the pentagon... after careful looking i realized this yesterday and have finally found an answer...

Picture 3: you can tell this isnt the front the building b/c of the different bricks on the entire ground floor portion. this IS the back of the building.

FEMA's Caption
"Arlington, VA, September 14, 2001 -- FEMA Urban Search & Rescue team members from Maryland Task Force-1 prepare to enter the Pentagon crash site. Photo by Jocelyn Augustino/ FEMA News Photo"

Picture 4: this proves that this is not where the "crash" took place b/c of the location. the backside of the part that did get hit is almost completely gone. Furthermore, you can see the pink writing on BOTH of the pictures.

So why would FEMA's photos explicitly say this is the back entrance to the Pentagon crash? What was in that portion of the building? I think we can ALL agree that no matter what hit the pentagon, it is not possible for it to reach that part!

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

In the first picture are you talking about those things that look like spools? What are you trying to point out?

Ill agree with you on the second picture, that hole is about the size of one wing of a jumbo jet.

Show me where it says FEMA said this and ill examine it a little closer

How do you know that is the same writing from that areial photo??? How do you know that writing in the first one isnt a photoshop effect?

[xblackdogx]

1. 1st picture: little debris for an entire plane

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4515

the 4th picture i came across, and noticed the similarities... no photoshop

[Myth1184]

i laughed out loud, give it up. These pictures have been going around for awhile now.

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

Where did they say picture 3 was the front??

[xblackdogx]

Where did they say picture 3 was the front??
they didn't; i said i have previously posted this and said it was the front (until i realized it didnt match the exterior of the front of the pentagon)

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

o why would FEMA's photos explicitly say this is the back entrance to the Pentagon crash? What was in that portion of the building? I think we can ALL agree that no matter what hit the pentagon, it is not possible for it to reach that part!


where do they say it was the back?

[xblackdogx]

where do they say it was the back?
it's obviously not the front lol.. let me find the other picture i believe there were 2...

seems that there were 3
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4958
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4957

[NightProwler]

heres what happened: the pentagon saw the planes going towards the trade center, so they launched a missle after the plane, but the missle turned around and hit the pentagon. they were so imbarrased from the mistake that they blamed it on another airplane.

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

it's obviously not the front lol.. let me find the other picture i believe there were 2...

seems that there were 3
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4958
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4957

Are you not getting what im saying you said....


FEMA's photos explicitly say this is the back entrance to the Pentagon crash?

with which you reply its obviously not the front....WHERE DOES FEMA SAY ITS THE BACK!

[xblackdogx]

are you telling me that you're not reading the caption... it's from the FEMA website, click the links, and read the captions

[Arlington, VA, September 21, 2001 -- Some of the work done on the back side of the Pentagon is shown. Photo by Jocelyn Augustino/ FEMA News Photo]

not explicitly saying the back side of the crash but it's pretty clear it's the back side of the Pentagon.

BTW other than minor details, what is your explanation that it's not blatant lies and that this is not proof the gov't did it

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

Because you have so little evidence/proof to convince the average proud american. You havent accomplished jackshit until you are able to prove to an average american that it was the gov or partially the gov. Im still not seeing enough to convince the average person, not to mention scaring them off by being radical(not you so much blackdog but GS)

[xblackdogx]

i respect those thoughts, but what would explain the hole in that spot of the building (pic 4)? it's obvious there was an explosion there, you can see the dark spots on the building

[eg420ne]

Shit i have yet seen any proof of the government story on what happen at the pentagon

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

I totally get what your saying, that hole doesnt add up to the information given. My guess is as good as yours but it shouldnt be there. Why dont you figure out what section of the pentagon it was and then get a map of which section is what department? Just a suggestion!


Id like to see you come up with more of your own information instead of regurgitating(sp?) someone elses!

[xblackdogx]

good idea
the Army Section: home to the Special forces (<--best guess)

[xblackdogx]

here, check out the line on the lawn of the white house. I'm not saying that is the line of a missile, but it is consistent w/ where the hole in the previous photo (pic 4) that i have shown. [right after the column]

what could go through Ring E, D, and C but not knock it all down... a missile?

[Great Spirit]

You're doing a better job than I could ever do man! Keep it up!! We know the truth that 9/11 was used to bring about a fascist dictatorship and was not some fucken hijackers with boxcutters. The government knows that a select few would find out this information as well.

Ya know I think I may actually kill myself because I feel I have already done my mission which was to present this evidence and testimony to people. Personal reasons as well. No one really dreams about being put in this sort of situation. It's like "how could those fucken bastards do this?!!", and you really find out how ugly life can be ya know. I just find it so damn fucked up. If I kill myself, I will be welcomed home...so I win. It's how we live...not how we die. Remember...its all about the motive!

It is now the people's choice to accept this information or not. I would like to die a quick and painless death then be beaten and put in a detention camp for being a dissident by Amerikan Nazis.

I thank weed for bringing me enlightenment in this life.

[Psycho4Bud]

here, check out the line on the lawn of the white house. I'm not saying that is the line of a missile, but it is consistent w/ where the hole in the previous photo (pic 4) that i have shown. [right after the column]

what could go through Ring E, D, and C but not knock it all down... a missile?

I've been through the missile theory before.......what kind of missile does this type of damage? Don't exist!:stoned:

[xblackdogx]

that's even better in proving that the gov't did it...
how would you explain the hole in the wall in picture #4 original post...
did one of the hijackers get out of the plane and detonate a bomb in that section of the pentagon?

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

off topic- I was watching the news and they were picking out the best new technologies that are used in the fight against terrorism that will be soon used in America. One was a new Hazmat suit, a drone helecopter, another drone that you can program its flight path and just control the camera, and this weird plastic containment box that medics would put a contaminated person in and it had like 8 gloves on each side so someone could attend to the person inside without getting infected or what not.

Just thought it was interesting how they need to bring the weapons against terror back to the homeland....

[Psycho4Bud]

that's even better in proving that the gov't did it...
how would you explain the hole in the wall in picture #4 original post...
did one of the hijackers get out of the plane and detonate a bomb in that section of the pentagon?

This may help ya out.:thumbsup:

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

So how did the nose of the plane survive allllll that structure to pop a perfect hole at the end?

[Psycho4Bud]

Psycho what do you suggest then besides a missle, you know the ________ that hit the building couldnt have made that hole....

Like I've stated....looks like a 757 hit it. :stoned:

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

nevermind

[xblackdogx]

ic, so psycho, where's the entire backside of the plane that didn't reach all the way in... or for that matter the entire plane... any pics?

y would the hole be directly on the ground floor... isn't the nose of the plane higher?

Psycho- please, dear 'ol friend, you're scaring me

[Psycho4Bud]

So how did the nose of the plane survive allllll that structure to pop a perfect hole at the end?


By the time it got that far your not talking about the nose of a plane anymore...your talking about debris with inertia.
Here's some interesting reading for those who love physics.:thumbsup:
http://www.mbhs.edu/~ojenkins/Cartoon.html

[Psycho4Bud]

ic, so psycho, where's the entire backside of the plane that didn't reach all the way in... or for that matter the entire plane... any pics?

y would the hole be directly on the ground floor... isn't the nose of the plane higher?

Psycho- please, dear 'ol friend, you're scaring me

Once again....here's some good reading.

http://www.mbhs.edu/~ojenkins/Cartoon.html

[xblackdogx]

fair enough, AMAZING inertia going through Ring D and C after the initial hit... and the pics of the plane?

[Psycho4Bud]

Here's some more good reading but only this time it deals with reality.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

[xblackdogx]

in theory, yes it sounds good... but that exact info contends your inertia theory on how the hole got to the other side of the pentagon

i can prove that the second link of info does not apply to the Pentagon [supported w/ rocket hitting wall] b/c look how much debris explodes from the initial contact, MUCH like when the planes hit the WTC... look at the picture sequence below.. there is NO debris... ANYWHERE... not even on the lawn

[Psycho4Bud]

in theory, yes it sounds good... but that exact info contends your inertia theory on how the hole got to the other side of the pentagon

i can prove that the second link of info does not apply to the Pentagon [supported w/ rocket hitting wall] b/c look how much debris explodes from the initial contact, MUCH like when the planes hit the WTC... look at the picture sequence below.. there is NO debris... ANYWHERE... not even on the lawn

Wait for the dust to settle before you look for debris.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hunthoax.html

I don't agree with the counter theory these people portray though.

[xblackdogx]

That doesn't go with your definition of reality [the rocket hitting the concrete]. You're changing your story each post.

That picture shows firemen at the scene already watering down and i barely see any debris all over the lawn.

I will show you a pic of the world trade center, did it take time for it to "settle" befor debris was present, no. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction = debris flying in the opposite direction just as the rocket has shown w/ your link

THERE IS NO DEBRIS IN THE VIDEO OF THE HIT = whatever hit it, did not hit like the rocket = where is the plane... any pics

[Psycho4Bud]

That doesn't go with your definition of reality [the rocket hitting the concrete]. You're changing your story each post.

That picture shows firemen at the scene already watering down and i barely see any debris all over the lawn.

I will show you a pic of the world trade center, did it take time for it to "settle" befor debris was present, no. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction = debris flying in the opposite direction just as the rocket has shown w/ your link

THERE IS NO DEBRIS IN THE VIDEO OF THE HIT = whatever hit it, did not hit like the rocket = where is the plane... any pics

Your kidding right? So as soon as the plane hit there should be debris laying there? Big difference between the twin towers and the pentagon. Twin towers were basic construction while the Pentagon is reinforced concrete. It went through how many of these rings while the twin towers had an open floor design.

One hell of an explosion...kind of like what a plane with big fuel reserves would create.

[xblackdogx]

Your kidding right? So as soon as the plane hit there should be debris laying there? Big difference between the twin towers and the pentagon. Twin towers were basic construction while the Pentagon is reinforced concrete. It went through how many of these rings while the twin towers had an open floor design.

One hell of an explosion...kind of like what a plane with big fuel reserves would create.
No, what I'm saying is that the fireball should be a huge outward motion of debris, not that it should be laying on the floor. And once again, since the Pentagon is reinforced concrete [much like the rocket example you pointed out] it should be that much more of a reason that debris should be in the video of the Pentagon crash. Are you saying that the similarities in YOUR link [concrete] do not apply for the Pentagon crash?

[eg420ne]

You see i keep on asking this question....OK if the plane going in at the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle <stay with me>-hitting the pentagon nose first then the right wing with massive titanium engine slams into the pentagon completely destroyed leaving no trace of it, then the left side wing with massive titanium engine hits it completely shedding it off leaving no trace of a wing, engine--Well if the plane is going at a 45 degree angle slams into the pentagon the left side wouldnt have hit the whole building because the wings are slanted backwards so where is the damaged wings n engine..

Another one, if the plane hit the pentagon on the first floor wouldnt the engines drag on the ground and if the engines drag on the ground going 400mph how come it did not break off

And why did the alleged hijackers take an extreme maneuver to strike the portion of the pentagon that was nearly empty, when they couldve hit right in the middle, or even the whitehouse.....

[Psycho4Bud]

No, what I'm saying is that the fireball should be a huge outward motion of debris, not that it should be laying on the floor. And once again, since the Pentagon is reinforced concrete [much like the rocket example you pointed out] it should be that much more of a reason that debris should be in the video of the Pentagon crash. Are you saying that the similarities in YOUR video [concrete] do not apply for the Pentagon crash?

It's like your looking for an airplane to be parked in someones office. The rocket is hitting a concrete barrier equivilant to that used for nuclear power facilities. That is even stronger than what the Pentagon had going. The Pentagon plane basically dissolved as it was passing through the rings.

[Ap0c4lyPtIcF4t3]

I may just be really tired and missing the point but with the towers the plane went through a open floor space came out the other side as debris

So wouldnt the same type of plane hitting a reinforced concrete structure not make it through???? especially a harden target like the pentagon although im not sure about the structure, its gotta be one tough building....

[one.stoned.wookie]

Here's some more good reading but only this time it deals with reality.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html
funny that proves that a hijacked plane dident fly into wtc..... the building is still standing WOW look at that....and another thing look at those pics they dont look simular to the flight 93 crash........and so they say they called on cellphones CELL PHONES DID NOT WORK ON PLANES IN 2001, MORE SO JUST BECAME RECENT TECHNOLOGY OF 2004 thank you

[Psycho4Bud]

You see i keep on asking this question....OK if the plane going in at the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle <stay with me>-hitting the pentagon nose first then the right wing with massive titanium engine slams into the pentagon completely destroyed leaving no trace of it, then the left side wing with massive titanium engine hits it completely shedding it off leaving no trace of a wing, engine--Well if the plane is going at a 45 degree angle slams into the pentagon the left side wouldnt have hit the whole building because the wings are slanted backwards so where is the damaged wings n engine..

There were pics of engine wreckage and as far as the wings....aluminum...dust!

Another one, if the plane hit the pentagon on the first floor wouldnt the engines drag on the ground and if the engines drag on the ground going 400mph how come it did not break off

Beats the hell out of me but not enough to substantiate a scandal.

And why did the alleged hijackers take an extreme maneuver to strike the portion of the pentagon that was nearly empty, when they couldve hit right in the middle, or even the whitehouse.....

The Whitehouse was suppose to be someone elses gig. As for the first part, who knows what was going through their minds....kind of glad I don't!:stoned:

[xblackdogx]

It's like your looking for an airplane to be parked in someones office. The rocket is hitting a concrete barrier equivilant to that used for nuclear power facilities. That is even stronger than what the Pentagon had going. The Pentagon plane basically dissolved as it was passing through the rings.

Even if it isnt AS strong as the concrete in your link, it is still concrete and should cause an explosion of debris! ( if you have anything to prove otherwise, please tell)
Dissolved through the rings? PIC below

Look at the pic in the highest resolution: There is no damage in the section right behind the crash but then the next ring back there is... how would you explain that if it went through, and dissolved throught the rings

[Psycho4Bud]

funny that proves that a hijacked plane dident fly into wtc..... the building is still standing WOW look at that....and another thing look at those pics they dont look simular to the flight 93 crash........and so they say they called on cellphones CELL PHONES DID NOT WORK ON PLANES IN 2001, MORE SO JUST BECAME RECENT TECHNOLOGY OF 2004 thank you

LOL...cell phone usage was banned in "01", hate to inform ya and considering that they were WAY BELOW the so called 30,000 ft that people talk about I believe they were able to reach out and touch someone.

You must not watch the tube at all....a plane didn't hit the WTC?

[eg420ne]

The Whitehouse was suppose to be someone elses gig. As for the first part, who knows what was going through their minds....kind of glad I don't!:stoned:
Do you have a picture of them engines--- left side wouldnt had hit the whole building

[CocaCola]

The fact that civilians are gathering more evidence to show the public then the government is makes me question the validity of what they have told us all. And plus with the constant dishonesty from the American government, it makes them hard to believe regardless of the evidence.

[Psycho4Bud]

Even if it isnt AS strong as the concrete in your link, it is still concrete and should cause an explosion of debris! ( if you have anything to prove otherwise, please tell)
Dissolved through the rings? PIC below

Look at the pic in the highest resolution: There is no damage in the section right behind the crash but then the next ring back there is... how would you explain that if it went through, and dissolved throught the rings


Cross reference your pic with this:
http://boards.cannabis.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=59729&d=1144894491

kind of deceptave with the angle of the camera on that shot.

[Psycho4Bud]

Do you have a picture of them engines--- left side wouldnt had hit the whole building
:thumbsup:

[eg420ne]

Cross reference your pic with this:
http://boards.cannabis.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=59729&d=1144894491

kind of deceptave with the angle of the camera on that shot.
Dude they show the wings and engines going inside the building when that happen?

[xblackdogx]

No matter what angle it is in, how can you explain in words, not suckering to a picture [which you dont even know if that is the angle that it hit] how there is NO DAMAGE in ring D, but mysteriously in between Ring C and B.... the only part i want you to conted with is the part directly behind initial impact

[Psycho4Bud]

No matter what angle it is in, how can you explain in words, not suckering to a picture [which you dont even know if that is the angle that it hit] how there is NO DAMAGE in ring D, but mysteriously in between Ring C and B.... the only part i want you to conted with is the part directly behind initial impact

So you didn't do a cross comparison of the pics? The angle of the picture hides the damage to your ring of question...compare them dude...it's there.:thumbsup:

[eg420ne]

Its hard to tell from them pixs of the engines to see what size thay are but i see the person standing behind it and it dont match a 757 engine, too small

[Psycho4Bud]

Dude they show the wings and engines going inside the building when that happen?

Them wings were toast as soon as they hit the concrete. I just showed pics of the engines....I WASN'T THERE!!! I WOULD HAVE TOOK MORE PICS BUT I WASN'T THERE!!! I just rely on eyewitness accounts and also some of these folk that SHOULD have nothing but respect!
http://www.ridersinrecovery.com/public/Memorial/Hijackings/Hijackings.htm

[xblackdogx]

care to point it out...
and b/w C and B there is debris all in the middle, yet b/w C and D there is nothing ... and again where the small hole is on the far bottom of the picture again there is debris in the middle
i'm beginning to think there is a pothead in one of the higher positions in this administration [that is unless you can point out where the damage is... paint works nice when drawing circles around the damage]

[Psycho4Bud]

Its hard to tell from them pixs of the engines to see what size thay are but i see the person standing behind it and it dont match a 757 engine, too small
Like you said, can't really make an accurate assessment without some dude standing by them....they sure look pretty coming off the line though, guess that one would look a little wounded too if it hit reinforced concrete at over 500mph.:smokin:

[xblackdogx]

psycho- this is from that website: flight 77 the one that hit the pentagon
http://www.ridersinrecovery.com/public/Memorial/Hijackings/HijackingsFlight77.htm
64 confirmed people.. correct?
where are the terrorists that were on board..
i understand that they would not include them in the memorial... but as i recall there were 64 people confirmed to be on that plane, and that is what i see 64 innocent people... = NO TERRORISTS ON BOARD

EDIT IN FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Flight 77 crashed into the western side of The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C. at 9:37 AM EDT, killing all of its 58 passengers (including the hijackers) and 6 crew."

[Psycho4Bud]

care to point it out...
and b/w C and B there is debris all in the middle, yet b/w C and D there is nothing ... and again where the small hole is on the far bottom of the picture again there is debris in the middle
i'm beginning to think there is a pothead in one of the higher positions in this administration [that is unless you can point out where the damage is... paint works nice when drawing circles around the damage]

Damn, you use paint? I'm feel luck just being able to do this!:stoned:

You can see a little debris in the picture in the area you talk of though...just that the way that shot was took there is a connecting hall or something that is blocking most the view. Compare it to the gif I posted and you'll see what I'm talkin' about.

[Psycho4Bud]

psycho- this is from that website: flight 77 the one that hit the pentagon
http://www.ridersinrecovery.com/public/Memorial/Hijackings/HijackingsFlight77.htm
64 confirmed people.. correct?
where are the terrorists that were on board..
i understand that they would not include them in the memorial... but as i recall there were 64 people confirmed to be on that plane, and that is what i see 64 innocent people... = NO TERRORISTS ON BOARD

EDIT IN FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Flight 77 crashed into the western side of The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C. at 9:37 AM EDT, killing all of its 58 passengers (including the hijackers) and 6 crew."


Yah, 64 people consisting of 58 innocent passengers, 6 crewmen, and some terrorist dogs!

[xblackdogx]

Damn, you use paint? I'm feel luck just being able to do this!:stoned:

You can see a little debris in the picture in the area you talk of though...just that the way that shot was took there is a connecting hall or something that is blocking most the view. Compare it to the gif I posted and you'll see what I'm talkin' about.
a little debris?... how come b/w B and C it is COVERED with debris and not b/w C and D

[Psycho4Bud]

a little debris?... how come b/w B and C it is COVERED with debris and not b/w C and D

You can see debris on the rooftops of the areas in question and also on that crosswalk.

[xblackdogx]

BARELY, and why is there a huge black spot in the C ring side (side facing Ring B) but not on the D ring (facing the C ring)

[Psycho4Bud]

BARELY, and why is there a huge black spot in the C ring side (side facing Ring B) but not on the D ring (facing the C ring)

Beats me dude! Maybe something was stored in that area, maybe this or that. Dude....I've been tokin' up since 7:30 and all this a>b=c<d....AHHHHHHHHHHHHH....CAN'T TAKE IT NO MORE!!!!:stoned:

Do to technical difficulties beyond our control the Psycho brain wave system is temporarily out of order...please stay tuned for further announcements!:stoned:

[xblackdogx]

Beats me dude! Maybe something was stored in that area, maybe this or that. Dude....I've been tokin' up since 7:30 and all this a>b=c<d....AHHHHHHHHHHHHH....CAN'T TAKE IT NO MORE!!!!:stoned:

Do to technical difficulties beyond our control the Psycho brain wave system is temporarily out of order...please stay tuned for further announcements!:stoned:
if it beats you, and it is not clear how this could happen.... Y would you believe the story then... thats all i'm trying to get at

[Psycho4Bud]

if it beats you, and it is not clear how this could happen.... Y would you believe the story then... thats all i'm trying to get at

Dude, one small piece of I don't know doesn't override the passangers, loved ones, eye witnesses, confessions of the attack, etc.......:thumbsup:

[xblackdogx]

one big lie doesn't cover the motives, the innocent deaths, the insufficient conclusions...

and how is this small... it is clearly NOT the plane that caused the damage b/w B and C or there would be the same OR MORE LIKELY more damage b/w C and D [rings]

[Psycho4Bud]

one big lie doesn't cover the motives, the innocent deaths, the insufficient conclusions...

and how is this small... it is clearly NOT the plane that caused the damage b/w B and C or there would be the same OR MORE LIKELY more damage b/w C and D [rings]

Your opinion and I can respect that....I have my own though.

Have a good one and hey, good session, kept it real!:thumbsup:

Here's one for you and one for me dude!:thumbsup:

[xblackdogx]

well, i wish i could burn one with you and hear you say exactly what you have typed... but oh well...

remember, i am not telling you what to believe... but the government is

[xblackdogx]

HERE is the damage from ALL angles

Conclusion:
1.Why is there no damage b/w ring D and C, while there is significant damage b/w C and B!

2. Why is that hole there... if a plane caused it there would be more of a trail of black on the outside of the rings.

[Great Spirit]

HERE is the damage from ALL angles

Conclusion:
1.Why is there no damage b/w ring D and C, while there is significant damage b/w C and B!

2. Why is that hole there... if a plane caused it there would be more of a trail of black on the outside of the rings.Hey man, you know Psycho4Bud is full of shit. I really do firmly believe that this person as well as some notable others on these boards are NSA agents monitoring these boards. Of course they will deny it though. We already know that LEO is present these boards. Funny how he never tries to debate me when I post. He never debated those 5 slide pictures of the Pentagon crash.

We will just keep on doing what we have been doing until they arrest us and throw us in camps for being dissidents. Thats what the Nazis did.

I ask again Psycho....WHERE IS THE FUCKING PLANE??!!

[Psycho4Bud]

Hey man, you know Psycho4Bud is full of shit. I really do firmly believe that this person as well as some notable others on these boards are NSA agents monitoring these boards. Of course they will deny it though. We already know that LEO is present these boards. Funny how he never tries to debate me when I post. He never debated those 5 slide pictures of the Pentagon crash.

We will just keep on doing what we have been doing until they arrest us and throw us in camps for being dissidents. Thats what the Nazis did.

I ask again Psycho....WHERE IS THE FUCKING PLANE??!!

I'm done with you dude! Easy as that.....get a clue!

[Great Spirit]

I'm done with you dude! Easy as that.....get a clue!Lol...the same generic response. Damn fascist Amerikan pig! It seems you can't bebunk those pictures huh!! Since you like to quote Lord of the Rings, here's something for you. We'll make Sauron into Bush and I'll be Aragorn.

"He (Bush) fears you Great Spirit...he fears what you may become..."

Little prick ass NSA bitch. You.....do.....realize that the Holy Powers will deal with you accordingly yes?? Personally, I would be careful whom you mess with if I were you. The Powers are always watching you.

p.s. Have you and your NSA buddies been snooping around in my computer? I don't like snoopers. You know in the Middle East, they'll saw your hand off for stealing.

[Psycho4Bud]

Lol...the same generic response. Damn fascist Amerikan pig! It seems you can't bebunk those pictures huh!! Since you like to quote Lord of the Rings, here's something for you. We'll make Sauron into Bush and I'll be Aragorn.

"He (Bush) fears you Great Spirit...he fears what you may become..."

Little prick ass NSA bitch. You.....do.....realize that the Holy Powers will deal with you accordingly yes?? Personally, I would be careful whom you mess with if I were you. The Powers are always watching you.

p.s. Have you and your NSA buddies been snooping around in my computer? I don't like snoopers. You know in the Middle East, they'll saw your hand off for stealing.

LOL...and you wonder why I wipe my hands of you? Your a joke!

[Great Spirit]

LOL...and you wonder why I wipe my hands of you? Your a joke!I'll take that as a compliment. You still never debunked those pictures. In case you forgot...here they are again. Enjoy! I hope your investigations and tortures go well as planned :dance:

[Great Spirit]

LOL...and you wonder why I wipe my hands of you? Your a joke!Here's some more...I almost forgot!

[xblackdogx]

I would just like to ask anyone that is just looking on the thread, and not replying if the original pictures have changed your minds about what really happened... this thread is really about trying to make the public aware and not to argue

[AmericanTerrorist]

How can you be so sure those pictures you post are to scale?

[Great Spirit]

How can you be so sure those pictures you post are to scale?Intuition. lol. They're true pictures. I know a lot of people are trying to discredit them and the whole 9/11 Truth Movement. 9/11 was used to bring about a fascist dictatorship. Accept it.

"I'm a war President" - George W. Bush

[AmericanTerrorist]

Well maybe this intution of yours should tell you that you make yourself look like a fool. What are you trying to do? Seems to me your trying to expose the government for what traitors they are to their people. I can agree with that but the way you do it is sad and fucking ridiculous man. Id think if you were serious about everything you say you would be a rational calm person and not try to scare people away from your point of view. Stop shooting yourself in the goddamn foot! What do you not get about that? Saying things like "Accept it" among other bullshit you say isnt helping your cause bucko!

Thats just some food for thought

[xblackdogx]

bump! this is important:)
ps. any contenders of my findings?

[Great Spirit]

Well maybe this intution of yours should tell you that you make yourself look like a fool. What are you trying to do? Seems to me your trying to expose the government for what traitors they are to their people. I can agree with that but the way you do it is sad and fucking ridiculous man. Id think if you were serious about everything you say you would be a rational calm person and not try to scare people away from your point of view. Stop shooting yourself in the goddamn foot! What do you not get about that? Saying things like "Accept it" among other bullshit you say isnt helping your cause bucko!

Thats just some food for thoughtYou have to learn sometime son. Why is it sad and ridiculous? Just because I am more enlightened then you, still doesn't give you the right to put me down. As Jesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword!", meaning that when the truth is revealed, people get very offended by it. Too bad. That is the way things work. People get very offended when I tell them 9/11 was used to bring a fascist dictatorship and a New World Order. They say Amerika could never be turned into a dictatorship. Think again!! Truth is stranger then fiction.

The fact of the matter is that you have to accept this, or else you are just another slave to Bush and his corporate cronies.

But remember...it was the German people who supported Hitler because they lacked the courage to challenge him and never questioned his policies. They blindly obeyed him. History is repeating son...don't let Amerika make the same mistake the Germans did!!!!

[Psycho4Bud]

I would just like to ask anyone that is just looking on the thread, and not replying if the original pictures have changed your minds about what really happened... this thread is really about trying to make the public aware and not to argue

Agreed!:thumbsup: And here's some pics for you. :D

[xblackdogx]

1. how would the wing damage in the picture be so low... it was descending from 29,000 feet right?
2. the "debris" is actually pieces of metal... debris would be COVERING the lawn, much as the debris covered a LARGE PART OF MANHATTEN
3. and the wing damage on the right? [refer to pic], did the plane only have 1 wing.... :confused:

[Psycho4Bud]

1. how would the wing damage in the picture be so low... it was descending from 29,000 feet right?

I don't think it dive bombed from 29,000 feet.

2. the "debris" is actually pieces of metal... debris would be COVERING the lawn, much as the debris covered a LARGE PART OF MANHATTEN

Your comparing a plane that went into a open floor design building that eventually collapsed to a plane that desintigrated into reinforced concrete.

3. and the wing damage on the right? [refer to pic], did the plane only have 1 wing.... :confused:

And a few more pics. Hope that clears it up for ya!:thumbsup:

[xblackdogx]

Psycho- according to the story you believe, the plane didnt drop to an altitude below 29,000 until the point of descending when heading to the pentagon... so why are the wings only by the ground floor windows...

also one question: let's say hypothetical... if it was discovered and "leaked" that it's official that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, and it was done by the gov't to justify war... how would you feel knowing you so strongly supported their story.

and ... what i am basing my beliefs on is solely PHYSICAL EVIDENCE [proof]... don't you think it's fishy that the government cannot put out 100% proof that these acts were committed by Muslim extemists... other than stating their names... and having some fucked up Moussaoui "confess"

and where did you obtain the picture below?

[Psycho4Bud]

Psycho- according to the story you believe, the plane didnt drop to an altitude below 29,000 until the point of descending when heading to the pentagon... so why are the wings only by the ground floor windows...

I don't know there exact approach, speeds, etc......just go off best information available.:D

also one question: let's say hypothetical... if it was discovered and "leaked" that it's official that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, and it was done by the gov't to justify war... how would you feel knowing you so strongly supported their story.

Osama has been pissing on our boots for years so as far as he's concerned...no big deal.
Afghanistan/Taliban....bad karma they produced come back to haunt them.
Saddam....entirely a different issue...still had good reason to oust his Bathist butt!:thumbsup:

and ... what i am basing my beliefs on is solely PHYSICAL EVIDENCE [proof]... don't you think it's fishy that the government cannot put out 100% proof that these acts were committed by Muslim extemists... other than stating their names... and having some fucked up Moussaoui "confess"

and where did you obtain the picture below?

The lack of public outcry from his Muslim brothers and sisters should be proof enough that Osama was the real cause behind 9-11.

Dude, I'm always answering your questions....my turn?
Why don't the Muslim world condemn the United States for the actions against poor framed Osama. He's not a nobody, VERY rich family with power and connections. Al-Jazeera would LOVE to break that story...why haven't they?
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

[xblackdogx]

The lack of public outcry from his Muslim brothers and sisters should be proof enough that Osama was the real cause behind 9-11.

Dude, I'm always answering your questions....my turn?
Why don't the Muslim world condemn the United States for the actions against poor framed Osama. He's not a nobody, VERY rich family with power and connections. Al-Jazeera would LOVE to break that story...why haven't they?
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

good question...
1. his family disowned him [and his fam have a VERY close relationship w/ Mr. Bush]
2. the answer to why al-jazeera didn't break it is the same reason that FoxNews won't cover the news "fair and balanced" [only thing i see on that channel lately is weather and duke and theres 50 substantial stories against the gov't]... its called covert control


can you spot the [brand new looking] monitor in the picture below?
in the part that you claim was a substantial impact from the plane.
[hint: on top of the filing cabinet]

and bad karma? when should the United States be expecting a major attack... you can't deny history and all the bad things we have done.

[xblackdogx]

Looked at what happened to the flight according to the 9/11 Commission Report...
my findings:
1. when looking at the foot notes.. they couldnt confirm check-in for some of the hijackers... [WTF, it has to be recorded in the computer by the airlines.. that is bullshit]

2. At 8:51, the pilot had his last ROUTINE communication with the Air Traffic Control.
3. Between 8:51 and 8:54, the hijacking took place
4. At 8:54, the "aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south"
5. At 9:29, auto-pilot was turned off [???? how can you get off course ^^ while auto-pilot is on] at 7,000 feet in altitude, 38 miles we of the Pentagon [how is it at 7,000 feet right before auto-pilot is shut off if they're going cross country]
6. At 9:34, the aircraft was 5 miles away and did a 330 degree turn at 2200 feet in altitude.
7. At 9:37 it hit the Pentagon.

In the report it says, "Shortly before 9:10, suspecting that American 77 had been hijacked, American headquaters concluded that the 2nd aircraft to hit the WTC might have been Flight 77. After learning that United Airlines was missing a plane, American Airlines Headquaters extended the ground stop nationwide [no more planes can fly]

BUT LOOK AT THIS CONTRADICTORY FINDING BY THE COMMISSION IN THE FOOT NOTES!

and i quote, "There is NO evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon"

-so there is a ground stop nationwide b/c of flight 77 by American Airlines, yet the FAA has no idea that this is going on... BULLSHIT

isnt it convenient that the LAST ROUTINE COMMUNICATION B/W THE PILOT AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL WAS JUST SECONDS B4 IT WAS HIJACKED? GOOD THING THE HIJACKERS DIDN'T DO IT AT 9:49.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[xblackdogx]

bump!

[Gumby]

saw that coming... lol... i guess they can forget how wrong they were 2 weeks ago... but none the less, that's why I love the internet... it doesn't get erased and idiots leave proof...

[Bong30]

snopes calls bullshit

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]


As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!



Origins: The
notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:


1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:


"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. Theyâ??ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 â?? before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack â?? newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:




2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:


The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:


The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

Next question:


3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" â?? it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:




4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.




5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):




6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:


When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.


7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.




Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in August 2004 rehashes the same conspiracy claims. It can be found at a number of locations, including:

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sperna/omgkool.swf
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Last updated: 23 September 2004


The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2005
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Harrison, Rebecca. "Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theory Book Lures French."
Reuters. 1 April 2002.

Henley, Jon. "US Invented Air Attack on Pentagon, Claims French Book."

[xblackdogx]

Bong30- cutting and pasting never proves anything.
you didn't even state your opinion, while backing it up w/ facts
we all know the 9/11 Commission Report, and that is the basis of wherever you copied that from.

like #5) the wings snapped and moved inward toward the fuselage and carried into the buildings interior? come on...

like get some photos of the crash scene, you know, where the plane hit
what do you have to say about the weird damages in rings that don't comply with the story brought forth by what the gov't says happened. i want to see contenders of the NEW evidence brought forth in this thread.

[Bong30]

Bong30- cutting and pasting never proves anything.
you didn't even state your opinion, while backing it up w/ facts
we all know the 9/11 Commission Report, and that is the basis of wherever you copied that from.

like #5) the wings snapped and moved inward toward the fuselage and carried into the buildings interior? come on...

like get some photos of the crash scene, you know, where the plane hit
what do you have to say about the weird damages in rings that don't comply with the story brought forth by what the gov't says happened. i want to see contenders of the NEW evidence brought forth in this thread.

i dont have the time to write 5 pages like the guy at snopes did

IT proves everything..... just think an independent researcher found this out.

you guys say one thing snopes and i say another...... I posted our side you dont like it cause it doest fit YOUR side. its ok

[Gumby]

what does snopes say about this .... http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

can I atleast get half of it when you do finially convince them Bong?? I mean I did show it to you right? when does that check come in by the way??

[xblackdogx]

i dont have the time to write 5 pages like the guy at snopes did

IT proves everything..... just think an independent researcher found this out.

you guys say one thing snopes and i say another...... I posted our side you dont like it cause it doest fit YOUR side. its ok
i look at evidence to suppor MY side, so if you show me something that makes sense i would analyze it.

you're source says nothing about how there is no damage in the ring directly
behind the crash site, yet the following ring does have damage.
given that YOU BELIEVE this guy's statements, what do you think about this mysterious placement of damage. THIS DOESNT FIT YOUR STORY (or tell me how it does) and these pictures are showing what ACTUALLY OCCURRED! - that's is what i'm trying to get at.

[Bong30]

so if you show me something that makes sense i would analyze it.
OK read this...

you're source says nothing about how there is no damage in the ring directly
behind the crash site, yet the following ring does have damage.



1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:


"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. Theyâ??ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 â?? before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack â?? newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.


pretty much sums it up........:thumbsup:

[xblackdogx]

Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.


among other things, this was the most amusing.

the PICTURES i have posted show me where the damage is to "all 5 rings"- as you source says-, so there is no need to try to prove to me in words where the damage was, due to the contradictory PHOTOS

how come the fires on the floors of the 3rd ring (look at the fire damage, black spots) didn't "melt" the steel aswell?

[eg420ne]

WoW explain this one for me- it said "the aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane".....Wheres the hole that the engine made, and also snope said the engines drag, wheres the drag markings?, and if that plane had hit the ground at 400mph damn wing n engines would of broken off.....please explain where the engine punched a hole in the pentagon

[Bong30]

here is some info on snopes, i just found them

Urban Legends Reference Pages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Snopes.com)
Jump to: navigation, search

The title page of snopes.com shows the numerous categories which urban legends fall into. They updated their layout in 2005The Urban Legends Reference Pages, also known as snopes.com, is a website dedicated to determining the truth about many urban legends, modern-day myths, internet rumors and other such stories of uncertain or questionable origin. Snopes is run by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a couple from California who met on the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban and married. The site is organized according to topic and includes a messageboard where questionable stories and pictures may be posted.

Contents [hide]
1 Main Site
2 Forums
3 See also
4 External links



[edit]
Main Site
The Mikkelsons' work has been effective in debunking or confirming widely spread urban legends. The site is referenced by numerous other sites, directing people to more information about various hoaxes, especially in regard to chain e-mails. Although they research their topics heavily and provide references when possible, not all of their sources (especially those which are personal interviews, phone calls, or e-mails) are fully verifiable. Where appropriate, pages are generally marked "undetermined" or "unverifiable" if the Mikkelsons feel there is not enough evidence to either support or disprove a given claim.

The site should not be confused with The AFU and Urban Legends Archive [1], a similar site run by the denizens of alt.folklore.urban, which houses that newsgroup's FAQ. (In fact, there is considerable animosity between some longtime AFU "old hats" and the Mikkelsons.)

The Mikkelsons have stressed the reference portion of the name Urban Legends Reference Pages, indicating that their intention is not merely to dismiss or confirm myths but to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmations as well. In an attempt to demonstrate the perils of over-reliance on authority, the Mikkelsons created a series of made-up urban folklore tales which they termed The Repository Of Lost Legends. Its acronym signalled that they were trolling. One fictional legend averred that the children's nursery rhyme Sing a Song of Sixpence was really a coded reference used by pirates to recruit members. (This parodied a real false legend surrounding Ring Around the Rosie's link to the bubonic plague.) Although the creators were sure that no one could believe a tale so ridiculous â?? and had added a link at the bottom of the page to another page explaining the hoax â?? eventually the legend was featured as true on an urban legends board-game and TV show. Whether this meant their plan backfired or succeeded is in the eye of the beholder.

Critics have accused the Mikkelsons of political bias. However, they have various articles that are both critical and supportive of various political beliefs.

The name snopes comes from the name of a family in the works of writer William Faulkner

[eg420ne]

But explain what happen with the MTE that was said by snoppyy the it went inside the building, I looked at all the pictures and cannot find where the MTE left there mark, i cant find no holes where the MTE entered....and its hard to believe that a plane going 400mph hit the ground leaving no trace of wings or engines or anything.......I trust snopes as much as pyscho4bud trust prisonplanet

[Bong30]

well eg that migh be snope is an independent they claim that... Alex has agenda.

maybe somewhere between snoops and alex huh?