And a few more pics. Hope that clears it up for ya!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by xblackdogx
Printable View
And a few more pics. Hope that clears it up for ya!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
The lack of public outcry from his Muslim brothers and sisters should be proof enough that Osama was the real cause behind 9-11.Quote:
Originally Posted by xblackdogx
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
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.
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
bump!
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...
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/me...e/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."
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 didQuote:
Originally Posted by xblackdogx
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
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??
i look at evidence to suppor MY side, so if you show me something that makes sense i would analyze it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xblackdogx
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:
among other things, this was the most amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
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?
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
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
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
well eg that migh be snope is an independent they claim that... Alex has agenda.
maybe somewhere between snoops and alex huh?